CJPS3

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

Kristina Murphy* and Adrian Cherney

Past research has shown that procedural justice enhances an authority’s legitimacy and encourages people to cooperate with them. However, this past research has examined legitimacy by focusing solely on the perceived legitimacy of authorities and has ignored how people may perceive the legitimacy of the laws and rules authorities enforce. This distinction has relevance to the policing of ethnic mi- nority groups who may come from different cultures or countries where distrust in the law and legal institutions is prevalent. Using survey data collected from a random sample of 1,203 Australians, this paper explores how procedural justice and both institutional and legal legitimacy impact on people’s willingness to cooperate with police. The findings will be explained using Braithwaite’s (2003; 2010) social distancing framework.

Keywords: policing, procedural justice, legitimacy, cooperation, ethnicity, Australia

Introduction

A core function of the police is to ensure that citizens comply with the law. To effectively maintain social order, the police must be widely obeyed and this obedience must occur in both personal encounters with police, as well as in people’s everyday compliance with the law. While the police can use strategies to enforce legal compliance or compliance with police directives, strategies such as these can have negative consequences on peo- ple’s cooperative behaviour. Weitzer and Brunson (2009) have shown that, in disadvan- taged communities where police are often perceived to be heavy-handed with locals, residents generally resist talking to police or fear contacting them to report a crime or even one’s own victimization. Given the benefits to both police and society of a public that is willing to assist and support them in collaborative crime control efforts, police need to identify approaches that can motivate and encourage people to cooperate voluntarily with police.

It is well recognized that police in Australia have had a problematic role in relation to Aboriginal people (Cunneen 2001). However, given the wide-scale immigration of peo- ple from non-English-speaking backgrounds, one of the most pressing challenges for Australian police agencies in recent decades has been the policing of a growing mul- ticultural society (Bird 1992).1 Australian research reveals that police agencies have faced significant challenges in generating support and cooperation from ethnic minor- ity groups (Bird 1992). The factors shaping the experiences of other ethnic and racial minority groups are quite different from those shaping Indigenous populations. For example, the attention that non-Indigenous minority groups and new migrants have

* Associate Professor, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Griffith University, Mt Gravatt, QLD, 4122, Australia; t.murphy@- griffith.edu.au.

1Census data indicate that one in four Australians is born overseas and one in seven Australians speaks a language other than English at home. Aboriginal Australians represent only about 2.5 per cent of the overall Australian population (ABS 2006).

�The Author 2011. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the Centre for Crime and Justice Studies (ISTD). All rights reserved. For permissions, please e-mail: [email protected]

doi:10.1093/bjc/azr065 BRIT. J. CRIMINOL. (2012) 52, 181–201 Advance Access publication 19 August 2011

181

received from police, Australia’s State and Federal governments, and the media relating to ethnic crime waves, their cultural assimilation and role in preventing religious ex- tremism (Dixon and Maher 2002; Collins et al. 2000; Haywood et al. 2007) has potentially unique implications for police/ethnic group relations quite distinct from the policing of Indigenous communities. Hence, understanding how police can garner cooperation from such a significant proportion of the population is warranted.

The importance of procedural justice

Sunshine and Tyler (2003) suggest that procedural justice considerations are particularly important in shaping people’s motivation to cooperate with authorities. Procedural jus- tice concerns the perceived fairness of the procedures involved in decision making and the perceived treatment one receives from the decision maker. Research into the effects of procedural justice has found that people are much more likely to want to cooperate with police when they feel they will be treated in a fair, respectful and impartial manner (Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Murphy et al. 2008). Procedural justice is thought to be ef- fective in shaping cooperation because it increases the perceived legitimacy of an author- ity (Tyler 1997; Hough et al. 2010). Legitimacy is a judgment people make about the status of an organization itself as a legitimate authority and is an internalized belief that an authority does their job well and is therefore entitled to be obeyed. Legitimacy also reflects the level of confidence and trust people have in those authorities. Where au- thorities are judged to be legitimate, people feel that they ought to defer to their deci- sions and rules, cooperate with them and follow them voluntarily out of obligation rather than out of fear of punishment or anticipation of reward.

United States and United Kingdom-based research provides clear evidence that ethnicity shapes perceived levels of legitimacy and trust and impacts on people’s expe- riences with and attitudes towards the law and legal authorities, with minorities being less favourable in their evaluations (e.g. Jefferson and Walker 1993; Tyler and Huo 2002; Sharp and Atherton 2007; Weitzer 2006). Research from the United States has shown that minority group members are more likely to say they receive unfair outcomes and that the procedures used by authorities during personal encounters are unfair (Tyler and Huo 2002). Minorities also express low levels of trust in the motives of legal author- ities. More generally, the criminological literature reveals that black people hold the most negative views of legal authorities (e.g. Skogan 2005; Bowling et al. 2003). Australian studies reveal a similar story, with ethnic minority groups being found to hold less favourable assessments of the police compared to the general population (Bird 1992; Sivasubramaniam and Goodman-Delahunty 2008; Pickering et al. 2008).

When examining the antecedents of cooperation with police among whites, African Americans and Hispanics in the United States, Sunshine and Tyler (2003) have found that police legitimacy is the key to cooperation among all ethnic groups, with procedural justice shaping perceptions of legitimacy. More recently, Tyler and his colleagues have also found that procedural justice is the primary factor shaping Muslims’ perceptions of police legitimacy and their willingness to cooperate and work with US police in anti- terror policing (Tyler et al. 2010). Recent research conducted in the United Kingdom has also revealed the importance of procedural justice and fairness to ethnic minority groups (Bradford and Jackson 2010). As in the United States and the United Kingdom, police agencies in Australia have faced significant challenges in generating voluntary

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

182

cooperation from ethnic minority groups and there is a strong argument to be made that enhancing police legitimacy in the eyes of ethnic minority groups should be a pri- ority to Australian policing agencies. However, empirical research investigating the re- lationship between procedural justice, legitimacy and ethnicity has so far been neglected by Australian scholars (for the exception, see Murphy and Cherney in press).

‘Authority legitimacy’ versus ‘legal legitimacy’

Before proceeding to outline how ethnic minority groups may respond to procedural justice-based policing in Australia, it is worth mentioning that procedural justice scholar- ship has tended to conceptualize legitimacy as originating in the innate properties of an institutional authority that leads people to trust that authority and feel obligated to co- operate or comply with them. Murphy, Tyler and Curtis (2009) have recently argued that past procedural justice research has overlooked how people may also perceive the le- gitimacy of the laws and rules that an authority enforces (i.e. legal legitimacy). They suggest that an authority itself may be seen to have legitimate authority, but people can still call into question the legitimacy of the policies, rules and laws that those authorities are enforcing. In such a situation, they argue that compliance or voluntary cooperation with authorities may be less likely. Scholars from the United Kingdom have also recognized the importance of legal legitimacy for understanding cooperation and compliance with police (see Jackson et al. 2011).

Using survey data collected across three different regulatory contexts (including po- licing), Murphy et al. (2009) found that the perceived legitimacy of the law did indeed influence one’s willingness to cooperate or comply with authority, with those question- ing the legitimacy of the law being less likely to cooperate with authorities. More impor- tantly, public perceptions of legal legitimacy were found to moderate the effect of procedural justice on cooperation. Procedural justice was found to be more important in shaping people’s cooperation in a positive way when they questioned the legitimacy of the law than when they saw the law as legitimate.

These findings are interesting to consider in the context of police/ethnic relations. As noted earlier, research has shown procedural justice to be important for shaping minor- ity groups’ willingness to cooperate and work with police on a range of matters. Whether procedural justice will shape cooperation from ethnic minority group members who question the legitimacy of the law still remains unknown. This is not an insignificant issue because, as Pickering et al. (2008) have pointed out in the context of counter- terrorist policing in Australia, many Muslim and Arab communities may support the police as an institution, but see counter-terrorism laws as unfair because they feel they are used against them disproportionately. Similarly, perceptions of racial profiling and the over-policing of particular ethnic communities can further undermine perceptions about the legitimacy of Australian laws and policies. New migrants and ethnic minority groups may also question the legitimacy of the laws of their newly adopted country be- cause they come from countries that have very different cultures and legal traditions. Under such circumstances, it is unclear whether procedural justice will be more or less important for encouraging their cooperation with police.

Murphy et al.’s (2009) research suggests that procedural justice might work particu- larly well for such groups. However, some research does suggest the opposite. Tyler, Lind and Huo’s (2000) study in the United States indicates that people care strongly about

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

183

their treatment by authorities when they believe they should have personalized connec- tions with authorities and the institutions they represent. For people with the opposite opinion, procedural justice is less of a concern. This possibly suggests that procedural justice may be less effective for ethnic minority group members who have no desire to interact with authorities who are guided by and enforce laws they believe are illegitimate. Other studies have also thrown doubt on the power of procedural justice in shaping cooperation and legitimacy (Huo et al. 1996; Huo 2003; Tankebe 2009).

Perhaps, for minority group members who weakly identify with Australia’s system of laws and rules (i.e. they question the legitimacy of the law), procedural justice may have little impact in shaping their willingness to cooperate with police. However, while studies highlight circumstances whereby procedural justice plays little role, these same studies do not provide an adequate explanation for why ethnic minorities who question the legitimacy of the law may respond differently to procedural justice than majority group members who question the legitimacy of the law.

A social distancing framework

Lind and Tyler’s (1988) group value model has been used in the literature to explain why procedural justice is important to people and why it positively shapes compliance- related behaviours. The model suggests that procedural justice communicates a message that a person is valued and respected, and that unfair treatment signifies that police do not consider them to be an important or valued member of the community. The group value model focuses predominantly on identification and the social bonds that exist between authorities and those they govern, with social bonds being effectively fostered through fair treatment. The limitation of this model, however, is that social bonds may work very well when the interests of the authority and individual/group coincide, but what happens when the interests of each conflict (e.g. through disagreements over pol- icies and laws)?

We suggest that Valerie Braithwaite’s (2003; 2010) theory of social distancing can offer a useful theoretical framework for predicting anticipated differences in procedural jus- tice effects between minority and non-minority group members who question the legit- imacy of the law. This is because it focuses on both interpersonal social bonds between authorities and those they govern and individuals’ commitment towards institutional goals and means. While Braithwaite has not applied her theory of social distancing to the policing context, her work in other regulatory domains has received growing at- tention in the literature (e.g. Braithwaite et al. 2007a; Hartner et al. 2008).

Braithwaite argues that individuals evaluate authorities and their laws in terms of how they perform or what they stand for and that, as such evaluations are made, revised and shared with others over time, people develop a position in relation to the authority and its system of laws. Social distancing is a concept central to this positioning and refers to the degree to which individuals or groups have positive feelings for other individuals, insti- tutions and their legal systems. In a regulatory context, social distancing relates to in- dividual or group attitudes towards an authority and/or its policies (e.g. the liking one has for the police and their policies) and also reflects whether individuals believe the institution’s goals can be achieved through acceptable means.

Braithwaite (2003) identifies different ways that individuals can position themselves in relation to legal authorities and she calls this positioning motivational posturing. She

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

184

suggests that there are individuals who are committed to doing right by authority figures and feel a moral obligation to do so. They agree with institutional goals and the means through which those institutions go about achieving them. People who are committed place less social distance between themselves and authority, and are more likely to co- operate and comply with legal authorities and their laws. Alternatively, there are those who choose to place greater social distance between themselves and authority. These people are more likely to display resistance towards authority and its rules or, at the most extreme level, are more likely to disengage themselves from interacting with an authority and its legal regulations. Resistance reflects doubts about whether an authority will act appropriately to achieve its goals. In this context, a person or group may accept the police as a legitimate institution of social control, but express opposition towards the way police use their power or the laws they enforce. People who tend to be resistant towards legal authority display this resistance as a way of expressing their right to chal- lenge policies and/or authority treatment that they see as unfair or unreasonable. Reac- tions can be manifested verbally (e.g. name-calling, arguments) or non-verbally (e.g. physical aggression, uncooperative behaviour). Braithwaite argues that, once a resistor’s concerns are allayed, however, they can usually be encouraged to move towards a posture of commitment.

Disengagement, in contrast, goes beyond resistance and the main objective is to dis- engage from an authority and its rules and reflects a desire to step outside the system. Disengagers disagree with both the goals authorities wish to achieve and the means by which they achieve them. While individuals cannot disengage completely from the in- stitution of policing, disengagement in this context may manifest itself in avoidance behaviour. The problem is that disengaged people are unlikely to want to interact at all with an authority or comply with its directions or system of rules and, in extreme circumstances, may seek out alternative systems of justice (Braithwaite 2010; Weitzer and Brunson 2009).2

Braithwaite’s postures are not static and, in any one interaction with an authority, dif- ferent postures may come to the fore (Braithwaite 2010; Braithwaite et al. 2007a). For example, during a routine street patrol, police may observe a range of postures. The common one is when a person flips from a position of commitment to resistance as the police become heavy-handed. Hence, Braithwaite argues that how people are treated by authorities can change the social distance they place between themselves and author- ity. Treat people well and it will reduce social distancing; treat people badly and it will increase social distancing. Braithwaite suggests, however, that people who choose to dis- engage themselves from an authority and its rules are particularly difficult to ‘win over’, even when procedural justice is deployed in an attempt to engage such groups, one reason being that procedural justice may be seen as an insincere attempt to win coop- eration (see Braithwaite et al. 2007b). In the context of policing, a history of poor treat- ment or entrenched mistrust of police can be difficult to overcome no matter what the police do or say (Brandl et al. 1994; Skogan 2006).

Braithwaite’s framework is useful for thinking about the way ethnic minority groups may respond to procedural justice when they question the legitimacy of the law. If it is the case that people who question the legitimacy of the law are simply more resistant

2Braithwaite’s framework is not dissimilar to Merton’s (1968) typology of ‘modes of adaptation’, with Braithwaite (2010: Chapter 3) acknowledging this link.

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

185

towards their views of the specific law or policy, then one might expect procedurally fair treatment to be effective in nurturing their cooperation. This is because fair treatment communicates a message that the police are trying to employ those laws or policies in an unbiased fashion. Similarly, resisters may view an authority that uses procedural justice as one that takes their concerns about illegitimate policies into account when deciding on which course of action to take. Hence, such an approach may be able to shift individuals from a resistant posture to a more committed one, thereby increasing their cooperation with that authority. However, if such people question the legitimacy of the law because they have chosen to disengage themselves from mainstream rules and laws and from the institutions that control them, then one might expect procedural justice to be less ef- fective or ineffective in fostering their cooperation with an authority who enforces those laws. For such people, attempts by the police to use procedural justice may be viewed with scepticism and as an insincere attempt to coerce them into cooperation. In fact, in her tax compliance research, Braithwaite (2010) has found empirically that procedural justice can be ineffective for disengagers. Considering different expressions of defiance via social distancing therefore might be able to explain how procedural justice may have little impact on cooperation amongst particular groups who question the legitimacy of the law (i.e. minority, disengagers) while having a positive effect on cooperation for others who also say they question the legitimacy of the law (i.e. non-minority, resisters). Of interest here is whether ethnic minority group members will display higher levels of disengagement towards police than non-minority group members and whether proce- dural justice can be used to foster their cooperation with police, particularly when they question the legitimacy of the law.

Method

Participants and procedure

This study utilizes survey data collected from a national sample of 1,203 Australian citi- zens. In 2009, 2,088 surveys were posted to a national sample of Australian citizens. All 2,088 recipients of the survey had previously participated in a survey conducted in 2007. The original 2007 sample had been selected randomly from the Australian electoral roll and selection had been stratified by State and Territory jurisdiction. Given the national and randomized scope of the sample selection process in the 2007 survey, both ethnic minority and majority group members had the opportunity to be represented.

The 2009 follow-up survey contained a range of questions, including general views about crime and safety, as well as specific attitudes and beliefs about police and the law, and police treatment of citizens. It had a particular focus on procedural justice, social distancing and legitimacy issues. A total of 1,204 completed surveys were returned for analysis. When adjusted for respondents who did not live at the original address listed in the electoral roll or who were incapable of completing the survey (N = 232), an adjusted response rate of 65 per cent was obtained. Item non-response or miss- ing data was quite low. For example, the missing data on the age and sex variables were 4.4 and 0.2 per cent, respectively. Typically, the percent missing on the attitudinal var- iables throughout the survey was between 0 and 5.

Respondents in the final sample were between 14 and 93 years of age (M = 56.13; SD = 15.00), 46 per cent were male, 75 per cent were married or in a de facto relationship, 32

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

186

per cent had attained a university qualification, 25 per cent were born overseas and the average household income was reported to be AUS$82,344 (approximately £52,114). One respondent was under the age of 18, so was deleted from further analysis. Using 2006 Australian Census data, the sample was found to be broadly representative of the overall Australian population. However, like many mail surveys, those who are older and more educated tend to be slightly overrepresented. Men were also slightly underrepre- sented in the survey (by 3.23 per cent). We decided against weighting the data due to the fact that the differences between the sample and general population were quite small (for a technical report on the survey, including issues about sample representativeness, response bias, etc., see Murphy et al. 2010).

Determining ethnic minority group membership

Since the 1950s, Australia has become a culturally and ethnically diverse society. Immi- grants from China and Vietnam form the largest non-English-speaking groups and those born in Lebanon are the most common Arabic-speaking group. Other common migrant streams include those from the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Italy, Greece and the Netherlands. One in four people in Australia is born overseas and the 2006 Australian Census shows that, of those who are born in Australia, 26 per cent had at least one overseas-born parent (ABS 2006). Unlike in the United States, where there are three predominant groups represented in the population (whites, African Americans, His- panics), ethnicity in Australia is much more heterogeneous in nature. As a result, in a national survey in which participants have been drawn randomly from the population, it is much more difficult to cluster respondents into discrete ethnic and racial groups as is usually done in United States-based research.

Ethnic minority group membership in the present study was determined via self- report using five survey questions: country of birth (Australia versus overseas), country of father’s birth, country of mother’s birth, ancestry (up to two ancestries could be listed) and language spoken at home. Among the 1,203 respondents were 223 people who identified themselves as belonging to an ethnic minority group. Ethnic minority status was determined if the respondent was from a non-Anglo-Saxon background; if the country of birth or ancestry items identified respondents as being of an Anglo-Saxon nature (i.e. outside of Australia, but from countries such as the United Kingdom, Neth- erlands, Sweden, New Zealand), respondents were not included in the ethnic minority group. Instead, they were categorized as a non-ethnic minority group member. However, if respondents indicated that they were born in Australia, but that their ancestry or parents’ country of birth was from a non-Anglo-Saxon background (e.g. China, India, Maori), they were included in the ethnic minority group.3 This process produced two distinct groups based on ethnic background: (1) the ethnic minority group (coded as 1; N = 223 or 19 per cent of the sample) and (2) the non-minority group (coded as 0; N = 980 or 81 per cent of the sample). It should be noted at this stage that, while one in four people in Australia is born overseas according to Census statistics (and 25 per cent of our sample was born overseas), a significant proportion of these people are from the United

3Due to the fact this survey was a national survey in which people had been randomly selected from the population, responses from Indigenous Australians were too low to produce a meaningful sample for analysis on their own; Indigenous respondents were included in the ethnic minority group.

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

187

Kingdom (approximately 5 per cent of Australia’s total population). Hence, we would not expect to see 25 per cent of our minority group sample being from a non-Anglo-Saxon, ethnic minority background. What was comforting to see from our minority sample, how- ever, was that the profile of the minority group reflected the diversity of backgrounds en- countered in Australia (in excess of 50 non-Anglo-Saxon backgrounds represented; see Murphy et al. 2010).

Measures

Of particular interest to this study are survey questions related to four variables: (1) pro- cedural justice; (2) legitimacy of the law; (3) legitimacy of the police; and (4) self- reported willingness to cooperate with police. Also used in this study were Braithwaite’s (2010) social distancing measures of commitment, resistance and disengagement, and some demographic control variables (see Appendix 1 for details). Prior to developing the scales, a factor analysis was first conducted to test for the assumed conceptual dif- ferentiation between the variables used to construct the scales. As can be seen in Table 1, seven constructs were revealed, although items comprising the resistance scale cross- loaded with the disengagement scale. The two cross-loading items were therefore de- leted from the resistance scale, leaving a two-item resistance measure. Cronbach alpha coefficients for all scales, with the exception of the resistance scale, were found to be reasonably high, indicating strong and reliable scales. Procedural justice Procedural justice was operationalized here via Tyler’s (2006) four concepts of voice, fairness, respect and neutrality. The six items used to construct the procedural justice scale were measured using a five-point Likert scale (e.g. ‘Police treat all people fairly’; 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree), with a higher score indicating greater perceptions of procedural justice (M = 3.25, SD = 0.64, Cronbach alpha = 0.87). Law legitimacy The five-item law legitimacy scale was based on the scale used by Murphy et al. (2009). It assessed whether citizens questioned the legitimacy of some of the laws the police are charged with enforcing (e.g. ‘My own feelings about what is right and wrong usually agree with the rules and laws enforced by police’; 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); higher scores reflect those who see laws as more legitimate (M = 3.81, SD = 0.51, Cronbach alpha = 0.83). Police legitimacy This scale measured participants’ level of judgment of whether police have legitimacy. As noted earlier, legitimacy has usually been measured through people’s trust and confidence in police and their beliefs that authorities do their job well and are therefore entitled to be obeyed. The five questions used to assess police legitimacy in this study assessed feelings of trust and confidence in the police (e.g. ‘I have confidence in the police’; 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree); a higher score on this scale reflects higher levels of perceived legitimacy (M = 3.93, SD = 0.72, Cronbach alpha = 0.92). Cooperation The cooperation scale was assessed via four items designed to measure respondents’ self-reported willingness to cooperate with police (e.g. ‘How likely would you be to help police to find someone suspected of committing a crime by providing them with information?’; 1 = very unlikely to 5 = very likely). Those scoring higher on this scale were more likely to indicate they would voluntarily cooperate with police (M = 4.34, SD = 0.61, Cronbach alpha = 0.88).

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

188

Social distance scales Braithwaite’s (2003) commitment, resistance and disengagement scales were taken and adapted here for use in the policing context. The commitment scale comprised four items (e.g. ‘Overall, I am committed to doing the right thing by police’; M = 4.12, SD = 0.52, Cronbach alpha = 0.79), the final resistance scale comprised two items (e.g. ‘It’s important not to let police push you around’, M = 3.07, SD = 0.71, Cronbach alpha = 0.40) and the disengagement scale comprised four items (e.g. ‘I don’t really know what the police expect of me and I’m not about to ask’; M = 2.09, SD = 0.61, Cronbach alpha = 0.74). All items used to construct the social distancing scales were

TABLE 1 Factor analysis differentiating items used to construct the scales

Item Factor

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

Procedural justice All citizens treated politely 0.81 Police always polite 0.79 Police treat everyone equally 0.76 Police treat all people fairly 0.73 Police treat people with dignity/respect 0.64 Police listen to people 0.60 Police legitimacy I have confidence in police 0.84 I trust police 0.81 I am proud of my police force 0.78 I respect police 0.75 Have great confidence in police as . . . 0.67 Law legitimacy Own feelings of right/wrong . . . 0.80 Own feelings of right/wrong . . . 0.80 Laws of criminal justice system . . . 0.79 Police enforced laws generally . . . 0.74 Agree with many of the values . . . 0.48 Cooperation Help police find suspect 0.87 Call police to report crime 0.80 Report dangerous/suspicious activity 0.80 Willingly assist police if asked 0.77 Disengagement If I find out I’m not doing what police . . . 0.76 Don’t think there is much police can do . . . 0.76 Don’t know what police expect of me . . . 0.69 Don’t care if not doing right by police . . . 0.60 Resistance Important not to let police push . . . 0.84 Impossible to satisfy requirements . . . 0.57 As a society, we need more people . . . 0.48 0.43# If police get tough, will not cooperate . . . 0.56 0.24# Commitment I obey police with goodwill 0.77 I am committed to doing right . . . 0.75 I feel a moral obligation to obey police . . . 0.71 Following police decisions is . . . 0.62 Eigenvalues 10.29 2.75 2.07 1.92 1.56 1.27 1.07 Explained variance (%) 32.15 8.60 6.45 6.00 4.89 3.98 3.35

Principal components factoring with varimax rotation. Only loadings> 0.35 are displayed. Full wording of items can be found in Appendix 1. # denotes cross-loading onto two factors.

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

189

measured on a 1 = strongly disagree to 5 = strongly agree scale. Higher scores on each scale - reflected greater levels of commitment, resistance and disengagement, respectively. Control variables Several demographic variables were also included in the analysis. These variables were the sex, age, income level and educational attainment of partic- ipants, as well as the number of contacts they have had with police in the preceding 12 months (excluding any social or work contact). Educational attainment was assessed on a 1–10 scale (1 = no formal schooling to 10 = post-graduate degree). Also included as a control variable was the ethnicity measure developed above (0 = non-minority; 1 = ethnic minority).

Results

Descriptive statistics

Table 2 presents the means and standard deviations for all scales for the ethnic minority and non-minority groups, respectively.4 Table 2 shows that ethnic minority group mem- bers differed significantly from non-minority group members on a number of measures. T-tests revealed that ethnic minority group members were more likely to question the legitimacy of the law, were less likely to indicate they would cooperate with police and they were more disengaged than non-minority group members. There were no differ- ences between the groups on the procedural justice, police legitimacy, resistance or commitment measures.

Table 2 also shows bivariate relationships between the scales for the entire sample. First, those who question the legitimacy of the law are less likely to adopt a committed posture towards authority and are more likely to display resistance and disengagement towards

TABLE 2 Means, standard deviations and bivariate correlations for all measures (standard deviations are in

brackets)

Measure Ethnic minority group

Non-minority group

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

M (SD) M (SD)

1. Procedural justice 3.21 (0.63) 3.26 (0.64) 1 2. Police legitimacy 3.86 (0.69) 3.94 (0.73) 0.63* 1 3. Law legitimacy 3.75 (0.52) 3.82* (0.51) 0.38* 0.43* 1 4. Cooperation 4.20 (0.62) 4.37* (0.60) 0.28* 0.34* 0.29* 1 5. Commitment 4.10 (0.55) 4.17 (0.52) 0.40* 0.50* 0.42* 0.35* 1 6. Resistance 3.13 (0.74) 3.06 (0.71) –0.26*–0.24*–0.24*–0.12*–0.17* 1 7. Disengagement 2.23 (0.64) 2.05* (0.60) –0.32*–0.29*–0.35*–0.33*–0.41* 0.26* 1 8. Age 50.51 (14.76) 57.41* (14.77) 0.21* 0.15* 0.04 0.10* 0.03 0.13*–0.03 1 9. Sex (0 = female) – – – – – – – – – – 10. Education 6.29 (2.40) 5.85* (2.37) –0.14*–0.13* 0.14* 0.03 –0.06*–0.19*–0.02–0.21* 11. Income 80.56 (53.41) 82.76 (55.67) –0.10*–0.08* 0.06 0.04 0.03 –0.09*–0.01–0.35* 12. Police contact 0.62 (1.12) 1.13 (9.88) –0.00 –0.01 –0.00 –0.02 0.04 0.00 –0.02–0.02 13. Ethnicity (0 = majority)

– – – – – – – –

* Significant at p � 0.05; given the categorical nature of the sex and ethnicity variables, correlations were not computed.

4In assessing the normal distribution of all measures utilized in this study, only the police contact variable was found to be highly skewed. The response distribution for all other measures was normal.

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

190

police. This supports the notion that those who question the legitimacy of the law are more likely to place greater social distance between themselves and authority. Other note- worthy positive relationships are between procedural justice and cooperation, and also between police legitimacy, law legitimacy and cooperation. In conjunction, respondents who view police as legitimate are also more likely to view the law as legitimate. Finally, procedural justice is correlated positively with commitment and correlated negatively with both resistance and disengagement, suggesting that, if people view police as treating peo- ple fairly, they will be more committed and less resistant or disengaged.

Regression analyses

In order to assess whether procedural justice is effective in promoting willingness to cooperate with police, a regression analysis was first conducted using the full sample. Note that all variables were centred prior to undertaking the regression analyses as sug- gested by Aiken and West (1991). Centring helps address high correlations between each of the main effect variables and the interaction term. Hierarchical regression— in which different variables are entered into the regression model at separate steps—was chosen to assess: (1) the relative importance of each variable when added to the model; and (2) whether police legitimacy mediates the effect of procedural justice on cooperation. When all variables were in the model at Step 5, Table 3 shows that those who were older, earned more and who saw the police and the law to be legitimate were more likely to cooperate with police. Procedural justice did not significantly predict co- operative behaviour when all variables in the model were taken into account. However, procedural justice did predict willingness to cooperate with police right up until the point when the police legitimacy measure was entered into the model at Step 4. This finding supports previous procedural justice studies that show that perceptions of police legitimacy can mediate the effect of procedural justice on cooperation with police (e.g. Sunshine and Tyler 2003). A Sobel test further confirmed the significance of this medi- ation effect (z = 6.90, p < 0.001; the table in Appendix 2 presents a separate regression analysis showing predictors of the mediator ‘police legitimacy’; this additional regres- sion shows that procedural justice is a major predictor of police legitimacy).

At Step 5 of the model, it can also be seen that ethnicity was marginally significant, with minority respondents being less willing to cooperate with police than non-minority group respondents. Important is the interaction between procedural justice and law legitimacy on cooperation and the three-way interaction between procedural justice, law legitimacy and ethnicity on cooperation. The first interaction replicates Murphy et al.’s (2009) find- ing that procedural justice appears to be more effective at shaping cooperation among those who question the legitimacy of the law. However, the second three-way interaction reveals this effect is further moderated by the ethnicity of the respondent.

To explore this three-way interaction further, two additional regressions were con- ducted. The first examined how procedural justice and law legitimacy interacted with each other to influence cooperation in minority group respondents; the second exam- ined this relationship for non-minority group respondents (see Table 4).

Table 4 shows that, for the ethnic minority group, age, procedural justice, law legitimacy and police legitimacy were predictors of willingness to cooperate with police. Older respondents and those who perceived the law and the police to be more legitimate were more likely to indicate they would willingly cooperate with police. For the minority

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

191

TABLE 3 Regression analysis for all respondents showing predictors of ‘cooperation with police’

Predictor B SEB b r2 part

Step 1 (Constant) 3.91 0.13 Age 0.01 0.00 0.14*** 0.02 Ethnicity (0 = non-minority; 1 = minority) –0.06 0.05 –0.04 Sex (0 = female; 1 = male) 0.05 0.04 0.04 Income 0.00 0.00 0.09* 0.01 Education 0.00 0.01 0.01 Police contact 0.00 0.01 0.01 Step 2 (Constant) 3.98 0.12 Age 0.00 0.00 0.09** 0.01 Ethnicity (0 = non-minority; 1 = minority) –0.07 0.05 –0.04 Sex (0 = female; 1 = male) 0.04 0.04 0.04 Income 0.00 0.00 0.10** 0.01 Education 0.01 0.01 0.04 Police contact 0.02 0.01 0.05 Procedural justice 0.27 0.03 0.29*** 0.08 Step 3 (Constant) 4.04 0.12 Age 0.00 0.00 0.09** 0.01 Ethnicity (0 = non-minority; 1 = minority) –0.05 0.05 –0.04 Sex (0 = female; 1 = male) 0.03 0.04 0.03 Income 0.00 0.00 0.08* 0.01 Education 0.00 0.01 0.00 Police contact 0.02 0.01 0.06 Procedural justice 0.19 0.03 0.21*** 0.03 Law legitimacy 0.26 0.04 0.22*** 0.04 Step 4 (Constant) 4.04 0.12 Age 0.00 0.00 0.09** 0.01 Ethnicity (0 = non-minority; 1 = minority) –0.05 0.05 –0.04 Sex (0 = female; 1 = male) 0.01 0.04 0.01 Income 0.00 0.00 0.08* 0.01 Education 0.00 0.01 0.02 Police contact 0.02 0.01 0.06 Procedural justice 0.06 0.04 0.06 Law legitimacy 0.19 0.04 0.16*** 0.02 Police legitimacy 0.22 0.03 0.27*** 0.04 Step 5 (Constant) 4.05 0.12 Age 0.00 0.00 0.09* 0.01 Ethnicity (0 = non-minority; 1 = minority) –0.09 0.05 –0.06y Sex (0 = female; 1 = male) 0.01 0.04 0.01 Income 0.00 0.00 0.09* 0.01 Education 0.00 0.01 0.02 Police contact 0.03 0.01 0.07* 0.01 Procedural justice 0.06 0.04 0.07 Law legitimacy 0.17 0.04 0.15*** 0.02 Police legitimacy 0.21 0.03 0.27*** 0.04 PJ � law legitimacy –0.13 0.05 –0.09** 0.01 PJ � law legitimacy � ethnicity 0.34 0.13 0.10** 0.01

Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5 R2 0.02 0.10 0.14 0.19 0.20 Adjusted R2 0.02 0.10 0.14 0.18 0.18 R2 change 0.02 0.08 0.04 0.04 0.01 F change 3.31** 72.11*** 38.87*** 42.14*** 4.93** Df 6,821 1,820 1,819 1,818 2,816

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001; y p < 0.07.

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

192

group sample, procedural justice had a negative effect on cooperation. For the non- minority group, income level, police contact, procedural justice, law legitimacy and police legitimacy influenced willingness to cooperate with police. All had positive relation- ships. The interesting finding is that procedural justice appeared to be counterproduc- tive in shaping willingness to cooperate with police for the ethnic minority group, but effective for the non-minority group.

More importantly, for both the non-minority and ethnic minority groups, the inter- action between procedural justice and law legitimacy was found to be significant. Table 4 shows that the interaction term was negative for the non-minority group, but positive for the ethnic minority group. To further illustrate the meaning of this interaction, simple slope effects were calculated for both groups and are depicted graphically in Figure 1.

The simple slope effects revealed that, for the non-minority group, procedural justice was effective at increasing cooperation levels for those who questioned the legitimacy of the law (see Figure 1a). In other words, cooperation was much higher for those who questioned the legitimacy of the law when they thought the police treated people fairly compared to when they thought police treated people unfairly (b = 0.20, p < 0.001). In contrast, procedural justice had no effect on cooperation levels when people did not question the legitimacy of the laws police enforce (b = 0.05, p < 0.36). This finding replicates Murphy et al.’s (2009) results.

For the ethnic minority group, procedural justice had a very different impact on coop- eration (see Figure 1b). Once again, those who viewed the law to be more legitimate were overall more likely to indicate they would cooperate with police and it can be seen that procedural justice had no impact for those who viewed the law as legitimate (b = –0.05, p < 0.67). But, for minority group members who questioned the legitimacy of the law, procedural justice had a significant negative effect on their willingness to co- operate with police (b = –0.32, p < 0.01). This particular finding is important, as it sug- gests that procedural justice might be counterproductive in shaping cooperation for minorities who question the legitimacy of the law.

TABLE 4 Regression analyses showing predictors of ‘cooperation with police’ for the minority and non-minority

group

Ethnic minority group (N = 223) Non-minority group (N = 980)

Predictor B SEB b r2 part B SEB b r2

part

(Constant) 3.84 0.24 4.08 0.13 Age 0.01 0.00 0.19* 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.06 Sex (0 = female) –0.06 0.09 –0.05 0.03 0.04 0.02 Income 0.00 0.00 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.09* 0.01 Education –0.01 0.02 –0.05 0.01 0.01 0.03 Police contact 0.01 0.04 0.02 0.03 0.01 0.07* 0.01 Procedural justice –0.17 0.08 –0.18* 0.02 0.12 0.04 0.12** 0.01 Law legitimacy 0.32 0.10 0.29*** 0.06 0.13 0.05 0.11** 0.01 Police legitimacy 0.22 0.08 0.27** 0.05 0.21 0.04 0.26*** 0.04 PJ � law legitimacy 0.24 0.11 0.16* 0.02 –0.14 0.05 –0.10** 0.01 R2 0.23 0.20 Adjusted R2 0.18 0.19 F 4.84*** 18.18*** Df 9,145 9,663

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

193

How can one explain why procedural justice is counterproductive for minority groups who question the legitimacy of the law when it can be effective for non-mi- nority groups who question the legitimacy of the law? We suggest that the social dis- tance some minority group members place between themselves and the institutions that govern them may explain such a finding. As we revealed in Table 2, minority group members were significantly more disengaged from police than the non-minor- ity group members. To ascertain whether level of disengagement can be used as a valid explanation for the findings, an additional hierarchical regression was under- taken using procedural justice and disengagement as predictors of cooperation with police. Given there were no differences between the minority and non-minority groups on the resistance and commitment measures, only disengagement was examined.

As can be seen in Table 5, when considered alone, procedural justice does appear to have an overall positive effect on minority group willingness to cooperate with police. Step 2 of Table 5 also shows that disengagement was a negative predictor of cooperation, with those who were more disengaged being less willing to cooperate. Of particular in- terest is the finding that disengagement mediates the effect of procedural justice on mi- nority group members’ willingness to cooperate with police. The positive effect of

FIG. 1 Willingness to cooperate with police as a function of citizens’ views of procedural justice (low

versus high) and perceived legitimacy of laws (low versus high) for (a) non-minority group respondents

and (b) ethnic minority group respondents

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

194

procedural justice on cooperation disappeared when the disengagement variable was entered into the model at Step 2. The significance of this mediation effect was con- firmed via a Sobel test (z = 2.99, p < 0.01).5 This mediation effect provides a possible explanation for why procedural justice may have been counterproductive for the minor- ity group when they questioned the legitimacy of the law; that is, cooperation from mi- nority group members is influenced by the level of disengagement they choose to adopt.

Discussion

Before discussing the findings in detail, the limitations of the present study need to be considered. First, given the cross-sectional nature of the survey data, it is impossible to make definitive conclusions about the causal relationships between the variables inves- tigated. Second, it can be seen in Figure 1 that cooperation levels among those respond- ents who view the law as legitimate, particularly for the non-minority group, were high, even when they perceived treatment to be procedurally unfair. This potential ceiling effect could have masked a stronger positive effect for procedural justice for both the minority and non-minority groups. If cooperation levels had not been close to the maximum of the scale (i.e. ceiling), an interaction between procedural justice and law legitimacy may also not have been revealed for the non-minority group. Ceiling effects can signal a possible bias in the sample. In our case, perhaps people who are more cooperative with police are also more likely to complete surveys. Third, the present study may suffer from shared method variance. Given all measures were obtained through self- report survey methodology, relationships between the variables may be inflated. The data were centred prior to analysis in an attempt to deal with this issue. Fourth, the R-squared values for some of the regression models were relatively low, suggesting that additional factors not included in the models may also help to explain people’s willing- ness to cooperate with police. Such factors may include the type of contact people have had with police in the past (negative versus positive), the neighbourhood conditions in which they live (high-crime versus low-crime area) or the type of policing approach used

TABLE 5 Regression analyses showing predictors of ‘cooperation with police’ among the minority group sample

when (a) procedural justice and (b) disengagement are used as predictors

Predictor B SEB b r2 part

Step 1 (Constant) 4.21 0.04 Procedural justice 0.17 0.07 0.17* 0.03 Step 2 (Constant) 4.24 0.04 Procedural justice 0.08 0.07 0.08 Disengagement –0.27 0.07 –0.29*** 0.07

Step 1 Step 2 R2 0.03 0.10 Adjusted R2 0.03 0.10 R2 change 0.03 0.07 F change 6.32* 16.40*** Df 1,202 1,201

5For the minority group, procedural justice and disengagement were also negatively correlated with each other (r = –0.32, p <

0.001).

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

195

in their neighbourhood. Despite these limitations, however, the current study provides important insights into the contingency that surrounds the impact of procedural justice on cooperation with the police.

This study aimed to understand the role of procedural justice in fostering ethnic mi- nority group cooperation with police, particularly for those minorities who may question the legitimacy of the laws they are being asked to obey. The results revealed that people’s perceptions of the legitimacy of the law matter. It moderated the impact of procedural justice on willingness to cooperate with police, with those questioning the legitimacy of the law being more positively affected by procedural justice. This interaction effect was further moderated by the ethnicity of the respondent. It was found that treating non- minority group members with procedural justice when they question the legitimacy of the law can improve their cooperation levels. For the ethnic minority group, in contrast, it was found that procedural justice had a counterproductive effect on cooperation lev- els for those who questioned the legitimacy of the law.

Other interesting differences between the minority and majority group members were also revealed. For the minority group respondents, age shaped their willingness to co- operate with police, with younger respondents being less likely to cooperate with police than older minority group members. For the majority group, age did not play a role in predicting cooperation with police, but income level did; those earning less were less likely to cooperate. These differences make sense if we consider other research. For in- stance, it has consistently been found that racial minorities provide less favourable assess- ments of the police and police conduct than majority group citizens. Age has been found to compound these views, with minority youth in particular feeling more over-policed (Leiber et al. 1998). It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that age in our minority group sample emerged as a significant predictor of cooperation. Past research also reveals that middle- and upper-class citizens rate police more positively (Skogan 2006). Hence, for our non-minority group sample, income level may have been more relevant than age in determining assessments of police and subsequent willingness to cooperate with them.

Explaining the procedural justice � legitimacy of laws � ethnicity effect

The finding that procedural justice has a counterproductive effect on cooperation levels among ethnic minority group members who question the legitimacy of the law is a par- ticularly important finding, especially so given procedural justice was found to be effec- tive at shaping cooperation with police among non-minority group members who questioned the legitimacy of the law. Braithwaite’s (2003; 2010) social distancing frame- work can be used to explain these results. Braithwaite’s social distancing framework draws attention to how general and specific attitudes towards the police influence public cooperation and support for police. It builds upon Lind and Tyler’s (1988) group value model that proposes that fair procedures matter because they communicate whether individuals are respected members of a group. The group value model explains why people react to procedural justice, but not the how. Social distancing is a dynamic way of understanding these reactions because it identifies the psychological strategies people employ when coming into contact with authorities like police. These strategies may change, depending on the quality of the relationship and contact they have with that institution, the views they hold about the laws the police enforce or the indirect stories they have heard about police from significant others. Motivational postures serve

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

196

the function of protecting people’s sense of dignity when encountering an authority and they signal to an authority how satisfied people are with its objectives and practices.

We obtained empirical evidence showing that procedural justice may have varying effects on different population groups, depending on the level of social distancing they choose to adopt and, in particular, the level of disengagement they display. First, we demonstrated that procedural justice was negatively associated with disengagement and resistance levels, but positively with commitment. Those who felt the police treat people with procedural justice were less likely to be disengaged or resistant and more likely to be committed. These findings suggest that procedural justice may be able to increase or reduce social distancing, respectively. Second, ethnic minority group mem- bers were significantly more disengaged from police than the non-minority group (Weit- zer and Brunson (2009) also revealed that African American youth are more likely to be disengaged from US police than white youth). Third, we demonstrated that those who were more likely to be disengaged were also more likely to question the legitimacy of the law. Finally, disengagement levels were found to mediate the impact of procedural justice on cooperation levels among the minority group; procedural justice had a positive effect on minority group cooperation with police, but this effect disappeared once their level of disengagement was taken into account. Such a finding shows that social distancing and, in particular, disengagement levels are important for determining whether proce- dural justice will be effective or ineffective for shaping minority group members’ will- ingness to cooperate with police. These findings also support Braithwaite’s (2010) claim that disengaged people are particularly difficult to manage in a regulatory context and they point to the value of considering Braithwaite’s social distancing framework in fu- ture procedural justice research.

Policy implications and conclusion

This research has aimed to provide insight into the contingencies that surround the effectiveness of procedural justice in securing voluntary cooperation with police. The pre- sumption to date has been that procedural justice ‘works’ across both majority and mi- nority groups. Our findings, while small-scale, suggest that some groups will not cooperate with institutions if they question the legitimacy of the laws they enforce. In fact, such views can generate social distancing and can undermine the very strategies that are seen as effective in building support for institutional authorities such as the police.

Such a finding, however, does not imply that police need to utilize harsh and insen- sitive methods to achieve cooperation when dealing with ethnic minorities who question our underlying system of laws and rules. Importantly, police need to examine whether laws and policies are being deployed against minority groups in a way that generates dis- engagement and undermines the law’s legitimacy. If the history of police and ethnic group interactions has been largely negative, with laws used to over-police particular ethnic groups (e.g. Pakistanis in the context of terrorism), then any attempt by police to engage these groups may be judged with suspicion. Hence, procedural justice may be counterproductive partly because of the levels of disengagement and distrust towards the motives of the police given past experiences and encounters. Add to this mix neg- ative perceptions of the laws and policies used to police them and experiences of social exclusion that ethnic people can encounter given their marginal and minority group

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

197

status and you have a recipe for poor relationships and social distancing that makes it difficult for authorities to build legitimacy and secure cooperation.

Police themselves cannot directly shape policy and laws. However, we suggest that po- licing approaches that not only aim to treat citizens more politely and fairly, but also ac- knowledge potential biases in the law by providing different community groups with an opportunity to shape decision making and the style of policing that they desire in their own neighbourhoods may be a way that police can more effectively shape minorities’ will- ingness to engage with police and help them combat crime in their communities.

Funding

Australian Research Council (DP0987792, DP1093960).

References

ABS (2006), 2006 Census Data, available online at www.abs.gov.au. Aiken, L. and West, S. (1991), Multiple Regression: Testing and Interpreting Interactions. New-

bury Park, CA: Sage. Bird, G. (1992), ‘‘‘The Times They Are a Changing’’: Policing Multicultural Australia’, in

P. Moir and H. Eijkman, eds, Policing Australia: Old Issues, New Perspectives, 352–83. Mel- bourne: MacMillan.

Bowling, B., Parmar, A. and Phillips, C. (2003), ‘Policing Ethnic Minority Communities’, in T. Newburn, ed., Handbook of Policing, 528–55. Devon, UK. Willan Publishing.

Bradford, B. and Jackson, J. (2010), Different Things to Different People? The Meaning and Measurement of Trust and Confidence in Policing across Diverse Social Groups in London, Social Science Research Network Working Paper, available online at http://papers.ssrn.com/ sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1628546.

Braithwaite, J., Makkai, T. and Braithwaite, V. (2007 a), Regulating Aged Care: Ritualism and the New Pyramid.. Cheltenham, UK: Edward Elgar.

Braithwaite, V. (2003), ‘Dancing with Tax Authorities: Motivational Postures and Non- Compliant Actions’, in V. Braithwaite, ed., Taxing Democracy, 15–40. Aldershot: Ashgate.

Braithwaite, V. (2010), Defiance in Taxation and Governance: Resisting and Dismissing Author- ity in a Democracy. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.

Braithwaite, V., Murphy, K. and Reinhart, M. (2007 b), ‘Taxation Threat, Motivational Postures, and Responsive Regulation’, Law and Policy, 29: 137–58.

Brandl, S. G., Frank, J., Worden, R. E. and Bynum, T. S. (1994), ‘Global and Specific Atti- tudes toward the Police: Disentangling the Relationship’, Justice Quarterly, 11: 119–34.

Collins, J., Noble, G., Poynting, S. and Tabar, P. eds (2000), Kebabs, Kids, Cops and Crime: Youth, Ethnicity and Crime. Annandale, NSW: Pluto Press.

Cunneen, C. (2001), Conflict, Politics and Crime. Sydney: Allen and Unwin. Dixon, D. andMaher, L. (2002), ‘Anh hai: Policing, Culture and Social Exclusion in a Street

Heroin Market’, Policing and Society, 12: 93–110. Hartner, M., Rechberger, S., Kirchler, E. and Schabmann, A. (2008), ‘Procedural Fair-

ness and Tax Compliance’, Economic Analysis and Behaviour, 38: 137–52. Haywood, L., Philips, M. and Wray, M. (2007), ‘Pauline Hanson Backs Kevin Andrews on

Migrants’, The Courier Mail, 5 October. Hough, M., Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Myhill, A. and Quinton, P. (2010), ‘Procedural

Justice, Trust and Institutional Legitimacy’, Policing, 4: 203–10.

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

198

Huo, Y. J. (2003), ‘Procedural Justice and Social Regulation across Group Boundaries: Does Subgroup Identity Undermine Relationship-Based Governance?’, Personality and Social Psy- chology Bulletin, 29: 336–48.

Huo, Y. J., Smith, H., Tyler, T. R. and Lind, E. A. (1996), ‘Superordinate Identification, Subgroup Identification, and Justice Concerns’, Psychological Science, 7: 40–5.

Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M. and Murray, K. H. (2011), ‘Policing by Consent and Public Compliance with the Law: Notes on Legal Legitimacy and Cynicism’, in A. Crawford and A. Hucklesby, eds, Legitimacy and Compliance in Criminal Justice. London: Routledge.

Jefferson, T. and Walker, M. A. (1993), ‘Attitudes towards the Police of Ethnic Minorities in a Provincial City’, British Journal of Criminology, 33: 251–66.

Leiber, M. J., Nalla, M. K. and Farnworth, M. (1998), ‘Explaining Juvenile Attitudes to- ward the Police’, Justice Quarterly, 15: 151–74.

Lind,E.A.andTyler,T.R.(1988),TheSocialPsychologyofProceduralJustice.NewYork:PlenumPress. Merton, R. K. (1968), ‘Social Structure and Anomie’, American Sociological Review, 3: 672–82. Murphy, K. and Cherney, A. (in press), ‘Fostering Cooperation with the Police: How Do

Ethnic Minorities in Australia Respond to Procedural Justice-Based Policing?’, Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology.

Murphy, K., Hinds, L. and Fleming, J. (2008), ‘Encouraging Public Cooperation and Sup- port for Police’, Policing and Society, 18: 136–55.

Murphy, K., Murphy, B. and Mearns, M. (2010), The 2009 Crime, Safety and Policing in Australia Survey: Survey Methodology and Preliminary Findings, Alfred Deakin Research Insti- tute Working Paper No. 17. Deakin University: Australia.

Murphy, K., Tyler, T. R. and Curtis, A. (2009), ‘Nurturing Regulatory Compliance: Is Procedural Justice Effective when People Question the Legitimacy of the Law?’, Regulation and Governance, 3: 1–26.

Pickering, S., McCulloch, J. and Wright-Neville, D. (2008), Counter-Terrorism Policing: Community, Cohesion and Security. New York: Springer.

Sharp, D. and Atherton, S. (2007), ‘To Serve and Protect? The Experiences of Policing in the Community of Young People from Black and Other Ethnic Minority Groups’, British Journal of Criminology, 47: 746–63.

Sivasubramaniam, D. and Goodman-Delahunty, J. (2008), ‘Ethnicity and Trust: Percep- tions of Police Bias’, International Journal of Police Science and Management, 10: 388–40.

Skogan,W. (2006), ‘Asymmetry in the Impact of Encounters with Police’, Policing and Society, 16: 99–126.

Skogan,W.G. (2005), ‘Citizen Satisfaction with Police Encounters’, Police Quarterly, 8: 298–321. Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T. R. (2003), ‘The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in

Shaping Public Support for Policing’, Law and Society Review, 37: 513–47. Tankebe, J. (2009), ‘Public Cooperation with the Police in Ghana: Does Procedural Fairness

Matter?’, Criminology, 47: 1265–93. Tyler, T. R. (1997), ‘The Psychology of Legitimacy: A Relational Perspective on Voluntary

Deference to Authorities’, Personality and Social Psychology Review, 1: 323–45. Tyler, T. R. (2006), Why People Obey the Law. Princeton: Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. R. and Huo, Y. J. (2002), Trust in the Law. New York: Russell Sage Foundation. Tyler, T. R., Lind, E. A. and Huo, Y. J. (2000), ‘Cultural Values and Authority Relations: The

Psychology of Conflict Resolution across Cultures’, Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 6: 1138–63. Tyler,T.R.,Schulhofer,S.andHuq, A.(2010), ‘LegitimacyandDeterrenceEffects inCounter

Terrorism Policing: A Study of Muslim Americans’, Law and Society Review, 44: 365–402.

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

199

Weitzer, R. (2006), Race and Policing in America: Conflict and Reform. New York: Cambridge University Press.

Weitzer, R. J. and Brunson, R. K. (2009), ‘Strategic Responses to the Police among Inner- City Youth’, Sociological Quarterly, 50: 235–56.

Appendix 1: Individual Survey Questions Used to Construct the Scales of Interest in the Present Study

Procedural justice

� Police treat all people fairly � Police treat everyone equally � Police treat people with dignity and respect � Police listen to people before making decisions � Police are always polite when dealing with people � All citizens are treated politely by police

Police legitimacy

� I respect police � I trust police � I have confidence in police � I am proud of my police force � I have a great deal of confidence in the police as an organization

Law legitimacy

� My own feelings about what is right and wrong usually agree with police rules and policies

� My own feelings about what is right and wrong usually agree with the laws that are enforced by the police

� The laws police enforce are generally consistent with the views of ordinary Australians about what is right and wrong

� I agree with many of the values and rules that define what the police stand for � The laws of our criminal justice system are generally consistent with the views of or-

dinary Australians about what is right and wrong

Cooperation

If the situation arose, how likely would you be to . . .

� Call police to report a crime � Help police to find someone suspected of committing a crime by providing them with

information � Report dangerous or suspicious activities to police � Willingly assist police if asked

MURPHY AND CHERNEY

200

Social distancing scales

Commitment

� Overall, I am committed to doing the right thing by police � Overall, I obey police with good will � Following police decisions is a responsibility that should be willingly accepted by all

Australians � I feel a moral obligation to obey police

Resistance

� It is impossible to satisfy the requirements of the police completely � It’s important not to let police push you around � As a society we need more people willing to take a stand against police � If the police get tough with me, I will not cooperate with them

Disengagement

� I don’t care if I am NOT doing the right thing by police � I personally don’t think that there is much the police can do to me to make me obey

the law if I don’t want to � I don’t really know what the police expect of me and I’m not about to ask � If I find out that I am not doing what the police want, I’m not going to lose any sleep

over it

Appendix 2: Regression Analysis Showing Predictors of ‘Police Legitimacy’

Predictor B SEB b r2 part

(Constant) 3.95 0.12 Age 0.00 0.00 0.01 Ethnicity (0 = non-minority; 1 = minority) –0.01 0.05 –0.01 Sex (0 = female; 1 = male) 0.13 0.04 0.09*** 0.01 Income 0.00 0.00 –0.01 Education –0.02 0.01 –0.06* 0.00 Police contact –0.01 0.01 –0.02 Procedural justice (PJ) 0.61 0.03 0.52*** 0.22 Law legitimacy 0.33 0.04 0.23*** 0.04 R2 0.44 Adjusted R2 0.43 F 82.58*** Df 8,851

* p < 0.05; ** p < 0.01; *** p < 0.001.

UNDERSTANDING COOPERATION WITH POLICE IN A DIVERSE SOCIETY

201

Copyright of British Journal of Criminology is the property of Institute for the Study and Treatment of

Delinquency and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the

copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for

individual use.