Advertisement

Asian Journal of Criminology

, Volume 14, Issue 1, pp 41–59 | Cite as

The Generalizability of Police Legitimacy: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Speeding Intention of South Korean Drivers

  • Yeon Soo Kim
  • Kwang Hyun RaEmail author
  • Kyle McLean
Article
First Online:

Abstract

Empirical support for procedural justice theory in criminology is robust in the developed Western countries, whereas the results are mixed for non-Western or less-developed countries. Some scholars (e.g., Reisig et al. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 14(2), 147–164, 2012) argue that the generalizability of procedural justice theory may be limited to particular sociological settings, such as democratic and industrialized societies. The current study aims to review the international generalizability of the theory and to test the theory utilizing a South Korean driver sample. The results show that procedural fairness predicted legitimacy and speeding intention. However, perceived legitimacy does not mediate the association between perceived procedural fairness and speeding intention for Korean drivers. Considering the findings from the current study and previous studies, it seems that industrialization may not be a sufficient condition linking perceived legitimacy and compliance, but democracy may be the most significant precursor for the theory to work.

Keywords

Procedural justice Police legitimacy Speeding intention South Korean drivers Perception of police 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Notes

Compliance with Ethical Standards

Conflict of Interest

Yeon Soo Kim declares that he has no conflict of interest. Kwang Hyun Ra declares that he has no conflict of interest. Kyle McLean declares that he has no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the study.

References

  1. Akinlabi, O. M. (2017). Young people, procedural justice and police legitimacy in Nigeria. Policing and Society, 27(4), 419–438.Google Scholar
  2. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations’. Journal of personality and social psychology, 51(6), 1173–1182.Google Scholar
  3. Bradford, B., & Quinton, P. (2014). Self-legitimacy, police culture and support for democratic policing in an English constabulary. British Journal of Criminology, 54, 1023–1046.Google Scholar
  4. Bradford, B., Huq, A., Jackson, J., & Roberts, B. (2014). What price fairness when security is at stake? Police legitimacy in South Africa. Regulation & Governance, 8(2), 246–268.Google Scholar
  5. Bradford, B., Hohl, K., Jackson, J., & MacQueen, S. (2015). Obeying the rules of the road: Procedural justice, social identity, and normative compliance’. Journal of contemporary criminal justice, 31(2), 171–191.Google Scholar
  6. Cohen, I. J. (1980). Toward a theory of State intervention: the nationalization of the British telegraphs. Social Science History, 4(2), 155–205.Google Scholar
  7. Cohen, I. J. (1989). Structuration theory: Anthony Giddens and the constitution of social life. London: Macmillan International Higher Education.Google Scholar
  8. Cheng, K. K. Y. (2015). Prosecutorial procedural justice and public legitimacy in Hong Kong. British Journal of Criminology, 57(1), 94–111.Google Scholar
  9. Foschi, M. (1997). On scope conditions. Small Group Research, 28(4), 535–555.Google Scholar
  10. Fyfe, N. R. (1991). The police, space and society: the geography of policing. Progress in Human Geography, 15(3), 249–267.Google Scholar
  11. Gau, J. M. (2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39(6), 489–498.Google Scholar
  12. Gau, J. M. (2013). Consent searches as a threat to procedural justice and police legitimacy: An analysis of consent requests during traffic stops. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 24(6), 759–777.Google Scholar
  13. 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
  14. Gau, J. M., Corsaro, N., Stewart, E. A., & Brunson, R. K. (2012). Examining macro-level impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40(4), 333–343.Google Scholar
  15. Harcourt, B. E. (2004). Rethinking racial profiling: a critique of the economics, civil liberties, and constitutional literature, and of criminal profiling more generally. The University of Chicago Law Review, 71(4), 1275–1381.Google Scholar
  16. Han, S. (1988). South Korea in 1987: The politics of democratization. Asian Survey, 28(1), 52–61.Google Scholar
  17. Hawdon, J. (2008). Legitimacy, trust, social capital, and policing styles: A theoretical statement. Police Quarterly, 11(2), 182–201.Google Scholar
  18. Hinds, L. (2007). Building police—Youth relationships: The importance of procedural justice. Youth Justice, 7(3), 195–209.Google Scholar
  19. Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007). Public satisfaction with police: Using procedural justice to improve police legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40, 27–42.Google Scholar
  20. Hoffman, V. J. (1982). Development of modern police agencies in the Republic of Korea and Japan-a paradox. Police Studies, 5(3), 3–16.Google Scholar
  21. Home Office (2012). Definition of policing by consent. Retrieved from: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/policing-by-consent. Accessed 03 March 2018.
  22. Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Myhill, A., & Quinton, P. (2010). Procedural justice, trust, and institutional legitimacy. Policing, 4(3), 203–210.Google Scholar
  23. Hough, M., Jackson, J., & Bradford, B. (2013). Legitimacy, trust and compliance: An empirical test of procedural justice theory using the European social survey.Google Scholar
  24. Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., & Murray, K. H. (2013). Compliance with the law and policing by consent: Notes on police and legal legitimacy. In A. Crawford & A. Hucklesby (Eds.), Legitimacy and compliance in criminal justice (pp. 29–49). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  25. Jones, T., Newburn, T., & Smith, D. J. (1996). Policing and the idea of democracy. British Journal of Criminology, 36(2), 182–198.Google Scholar
  26. Kekic, L. (2007). The economist intelligence Unit’s index of democracy. The Economist, 21, 1–11.Google Scholar
  27. Langley, B. (2014). A randomised control trial comparing the effects of procedural justice to experienced utility theories in airport security stops. Unpublished master’s dissertation). University of Cambridge, UK.Google Scholar
  28. Lowrey, B. V., Maguire, E. R., & Bennett, R. R. (2016). Testing the effects of procedural justice and overaccommodation in traffic stops: A randomized experiment. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(10), 1430–1449.Google Scholar
  29. MacQueen, S., & Bradford, B. (2015). Enhancing public trust and police legitimacy during road traffic encounters: results from a randomised controlled trial in Scotland. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11(3), 419–443.Google Scholar
  30. Maguire, E. R., & Johnson, D. (2010). Measuring public perceptions of the police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33(4), 703–730.Google Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Mahlberg, B., and Obersteiner, M. (2001), Remeasuring the HDI by data envelopement analysis, Available at SSRN 1999372.Google Scholar
  33. Manning, P. K. (2010). Democratic policing in a changing world. Boulder: Paradigm Publishers.Google Scholar
  34. 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
  35. Mazerolle, L., Antrobus, E., Bennett, S., & Tyler, T. R. (2013). Shaping citizen perceptions of police legitimacy: A randomized field trial of procedural justice. Criminology, 51(1), 33–63.Google Scholar
  36. Moon, B. (2004). The politicization of police in South Korea: A critical review. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, 27(1), 128–136.Google Scholar
  37. Murphy, K. (2005). Regulating more effectively: The relationship between procedural justice, legitimacy, and tax non-compliance. Journal of Law and Society, 32(4), 562–589.Google Scholar
  38. Murphy, K. (2013). Policing at the margins: Fostering trust and cooperation among ethnic minority groups. Journal of Policing, Intelligence and Counter Terrorism, 8(2), 184–199.Google Scholar
  39. Murphy, K. (2015). Does procedural justice matter to youth? Comparing adults' and youths' willingness to collaborate with police. Policing and Society, 25(1), 53–76.Google Scholar
  40. Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2011). Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing? Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 44(2), 235–257.Google Scholar
  41. 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.Google Scholar
  42. Murphy, K., Bradford, B., & Jackson, J. (2016). Motivating compliance behavior among offenders procedural justice or deterrence? Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 102–118.Google Scholar
  43. Nagin, D. S., & Telep, C. W. (2017). Procedural justice and legal compliance. Annual Review of Law and Social Science, 13, 5–28.Google Scholar
  44. Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter? The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and Society Review, 31(1), 163–204.Google Scholar
  45. Penner, E. K., Viljoen, J. L., Douglas, K. S., & Roesch, R. (2014). Procedural justice versus risk factors for offending: Predicting recidivism in youth. Law and Human Behavior, 38(3), 225–237.Google Scholar
  46. Pryce, D. K., Johnson, D., & Maguire, E. R. (2017). Procedural justice, obligation to obey, and cooperation with police in a sample of Ghanaian immigrants. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(5), 733–755.Google Scholar
  47. 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
  48. Reisig, M. D., & Meško, G. (2009). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and prisoner misconduct. Psychology, Crime and Law, 15(1), 41–59.Google Scholar
  49. Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34(8), 1005–1028.Google Scholar
  50. Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2012). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and public cooperation with the police among young Slovene adults. Journal of Criminal Justice and Security, 14(2), 147–164.Google Scholar
  51. Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Meško, G. (2014). Compliance with the law in Slovenia: The role of procedural justice and police legitimacy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 20(2), 259–276.Google Scholar
  52. Royston, P., & White, I. R. (2011). Multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE): Implementation in Stata. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(4), 1–20.Google Scholar
  53. Rubin, D. B. (1976). Inference and missing data. Biometrika, 63(3), 581–592.Google Scholar
  54. Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2014). Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with police: Testing the dominance of the process-based model. European Journal of Criminology, 11(4), 500–524.Google Scholar
  55. Sklansky, D. A. (2008). Work and authority in policing. In M. D. Dubber & M. Valverde (Eds.), Police and the liberal state (pp. 110–135). Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  56. Sun, I. Y., Wu, Y., Hu, R., & Farmer, A. K. (2017). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and public cooperation with police: Does Western wisdom hold in China? Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 54(4), 454–478.Google Scholar
  57. 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.Google Scholar
  58. Tankebe, J. (2008). Police effectiveness and police trustworthiness in Ghana: An empirical appraisal. Criminology and Criminal Justice, 8(2), 185–202.Google Scholar
  59. Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47(4), 1265–1293.Google Scholar
  60. Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135.Google Scholar
  61. Terrill, W. (2001). Police coercion: application of the force continuum (pp. 1176-1176). New York: LFB Scholarly Publishing LLC.Google Scholar
  62. The Economist Intelligence Unit (2015). Democracy index 2015: Democracy in an age of anxiety. Accessed on: http://www.eiu.com/Handlers/WhitepaperHandler.ashx.
  63. Tsushima, M., & Hamai, K. (2015). Public cooperation with the police in Japan testing the legitimacy model. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 31(2), 212–228.Google Scholar
  64. Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and compliance. New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  65. Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361.Google Scholar
  66. Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts through: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts through. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  67. Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42(2), 253–282.Google Scholar
  68. United Nations Development Programme. (2015). Human development report 2015: Work for human development. New York: United Nations Development Programme.Google Scholar
  69. White, I. R., Royston, P., & Wood, A. M. (2011). Multiple imputation using chained equations: Issues and guidance for practice. Statistics in Medicine, 30(4), 377–399.Google Scholar
  70. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Transdisciplinary Policing ScienceDongguk UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  2. 2.Institute of Transdisciplinary Studies for the FutureDongguk UniversitySeoulSouth Korea
  3. 3.College of Criminology and Criminal JusticeFlorida State UniversityTallahasseeUSA

Personalised recommendations

Cite article

Buy options