Advertisement

The effect of procedural injustice during emergency 911 calls: a factorial vignette-based study

  • Michaela FlippinEmail author
  • Michael D. Reisig
  • Rick Trinkner
Article

Abstract

Objectives

This study tests the effects of procedurally unfair treatment by 911 dispatchers on behavioral intentions to cooperate with criminal justice professionals.

Methods

A factorial vignette design and a university-based sample (N = 488) were used. This study used two different vignettes, each of which involved a different type of emergency (i.e., a burglary incident and a traffic accident) and two experimental manipulations (i.e., procedural injustice and seriousness).

Results

Participants who received the injustice stimuli reported they would be less likely call 911 in the future to report a similar incident, less likely to cooperate with the 911 operator if asked additional questions, and less willing to cooperate with the police once they arrived on the scene. In relative terms, the seriousness of the incident (e.g., amount of property stolen) mattered far less.

Conclusion

This study demonstrates that procedural injustice during 911 calls not only adversely affects dispatchers, but also the police when they arrive on the scene.

Keywords

Emergency 911 Face attack Legal socialization Police-citizen relations Procedural justice 

Notes

Compliance with ethical standards

ASU’s institutional review board approved this protocol.

References

  1. Atzmüller, C., & Steiner, P. (2010). Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology, 6(3), 128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bradford, B., Jackson, J., & Hough, M. (2014). Police legitimacy in action: lessons for theory and practice. In M. Reisig & R. Kane (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of police and policing (pp. 551–569). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Brubacher, M., Fondacaro, M., Brank, E., Brown, V., & Miller, S. (2009). Procedural justice in resolving family disputes: implications for childhood bullying. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 15(3), 149–167.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Filman, A. (2015). The emergency aid doctrine and 911 hang-ups: the modern general warrant. Vanderbilt Law Review, 68(3), 919–959.Google Scholar
  5. Goffman, E. (1967). Interaction ritual. Garden City: Anchor.Google Scholar
  6. Kaiser, K., & Reisig, M. (2019). Legal socialization and self-reported criminal offending: the role of procedural justice and legal orientations. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 35(1), 135–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. McCluskey, J., Mastrofski, S., & Parks, R. (1999). To acquiesce or rebel: predicting citizen compliance with police requests. Police Quarterly, 2(4), 389–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Osher, C. (2013). Denver’s 911 call review shows a pattern of problems. The Denver Post. Retrieved from https://www.denverpost.com. Accessed 19 Mar 2019.
  9. Reisig, M., & Bain, S. (2016). University legitimacy and student compliance with academic dishonesty codes: a partial test of the process-based model of self-regulation. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 83–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Reisig, M., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1005–1028.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Reisig, M., Mays, R., & Telep, C. (2018). The effects of procedural injustice during police–citizen encounters: a factorial vignette study. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(1), 49–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Skogan, W., Van Craen, M., & Hennessy, C. (2015). Training police for procedural justice. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 319–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Tarling, R., & Morris, K. (2010). Reporting crime to the police. The British Journal of Criminology, 50(3), 474–490.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Trinkner, R., & Cohn, E. (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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Tyler, T. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, 30, 283–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Tyler, T., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the law. New York: Russell Sage.Google Scholar
  17. Tyler, T., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Policy, and Law, 20(1), 78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Arizona State UniversityTempeUSA

Personalised recommendations