Did George Floyd's murder shape the public's felt obligation to obey the police?

OBJECTIVE: Our goal in the present study was to use longitudinal data to assess how normative (i.e., consensually motivated) and instrumental (i.e., coercively motivated) obligation to obey police changed after police murdered George Floyd and whether these changes differed by political ideology. HYPOTHESES: Using procedural justice theory, we hypothesized that after Floyd's murder, participants would feel less normatively obligated and more instrumentally obligated to obey police. We also hypothesized that these trends would be stronger for liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning participants. METHOD: Adults (N = 645) were recruited through Prolific from four politically diverse U.S. states. Participants reported their normative and instrumental obligation across three waves of data collection, each separated by 3 weeks. The first two waves were collected prior to the Floyd's murder, and the third was collected after. RESULTS: Hierarchical linear models indicated that although normative obligation remained stable before Floyd's murder, it declined after Floyd's murder (b = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.24, -0.14], p < .001). In contrast, coercive obligation to obey increased consistently across all three waves. Liberal-leaning participants drove most of the effects. CONCLUSIONS: For researchers, these findings help strengthen our understanding of procedural justice theory by differentiating normative and instrumental obligation and by distinguishing differences by political ideology within the context of a historic police-brutality event. For policymakers and law enforcement, our research suggests that police brutality may undermine the public's normative felt obligation to obey the police, which would be problematic for police reformation efforts grounded in governing by mutual consent versus by fear and coercion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Centering race in procedural justice theory: Structural racism and the under- and overpolicing of Black communities.

OBJECTIVE: We assessed the factors that legitimized the police in the United States at an important moment of history, just after the police killing of George Floyd in 2020. We also evaluated one way of incorporating perceptions of systemic racism into procedural justice theory. HYPOTHESES: We tested two primary hypotheses. The first hypothesis was that perceptions of police procedural justice, distributive justice, and bounded authority were important to the legitimization of the police. The second hypothesis was that perceptions of the under- and overpolicing of Black communities also mattered to the delegitimization of the institution, especially for people who identified with the Black Lives Matter movement. METHOD: A cross-sectional quota sample survey of 1,500 U.S. residents was conducted in June 2020. Data were analyzed using confirmatory factor analysis, structural equation modeling, and latent moderated structural equation modeling. RESULTS: People who viewed the police as legitimate also tended to believe that police treated people with respect and dignity, made decisions in unbiased ways, fairly allocated their finite resources across groups in society, and respected the limits of their rightful authority. Moreover, people who believed that Black communities were underpoliced and overpoliced also tended to question the legitimacy of the police, especially if they identified with the Black Lives Matter movement. These results held among Black and White study participants alike. CONCLUSIONS: At the time of the study, systemic racism in policing may have delegitimized the institution in a way that transcended the factors that procedural justice theory focuses on, such as procedural justice. This was especially so for individuals who identified with a social movement, Black Lives Matter, that had an extremely high profile in 2020. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Who Can You Trust? The Impact of Procedural Justice, Trust, and Police Officer Sex on Women's Sexual Assault Victimization Reporting Likelihood.

Sexual assaults are underreported to the police, even though this crime affects one in four college women. Using a vignette design, this study fills a gap in the literature by examining the influence of prior police perceptions, procedurally unjust treatment, and the sex of the responding officer on college women's likelihood to report sexual assault. Results indicate positive prior police perceptions significantly increase students' perceived likelihood to report sexual victimization. Even when controlling for prior perceptions, procedurally unfair treatment significantly decreases the likelihood of future victimization reporting. Responding officer sex does not affect students' decision to report.

The force of fear: Police stereotype threat, self-legitimacy, and support for excessive force.

Researchers have linked police officers' concerns with appearing racist-a kind of stereotype threat-to racial disparities in the use of force. This study presents the first empirical test of the hypothesized psychological mechanism linking stereotype threat to police support for violence. We hypothesized that stereotype threat undermines officers' self-legitimacy, or the confidence they have in their inherent authority, encouraging overreliance on coercive policing to maintain control. Officers (n = 784) from the patrol division of a large urban police force completed a survey in order to test this hypothesis. Respondents completed measures of stereotype threat, self-legitimacy, resistance to use of force policy, approval of unreasonable force, and endorsement of procedurally fair policing. Structural equation models showed that elevated stereotype threat was associated with lower self-legitimacy (ß = -.15), which in turn was associated with more resistance to restrictions on force (ß = -.17), greater approval of unreasonable force (ß = -.31), and lower endorsement of fair policing (ß = .57). These results reveal that concerns about appearing racist are actually associated with increased support for coercive policing-potentially further eroding public trust. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Bounded authority: Expanding "appropriate" police behavior beyond procedural justice.

This paper expands previous conceptualizations of appropriate police behavior beyond procedural justice. The focus of the current study is on the notion of bounded authority-that is, acting within the limits of one's rightful authority. According to work on legal socialization, U.S. citizens come to acquire three dimensions of values that determine how authorities ought to behave: (a) neutral, consistent, and transparent decision-making; (b) interpersonal treatment that conveys respect, dignity, and concern; and (c) respecting the limits of one's rightful power. Using survey data from a nationally representative sample of U.S. adults, we show that concerns over bounded authority, respectful treatment, and neutral decision-making combine to form a strong predictor of police and legal legitimacy. We also find that legal legitimacy is associated with greater compliance behavior, controlling for personal morality and perceived likelihood of sanctions. We discuss the implications of a boundary perspective with respect to ongoing debates over the appropriate scope of police power and the utility of concentrated police activities. We also highlight the need for further research specifically focused on the psychological mechanisms underlying the formation of boundaries and why they shape the legitimacy of the police and law. (PsycINFO Database Record

Putting the "social" back in legal socialization: procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities.

Traditionally, legal socialization theory and research has been dominated by a cognitive developmental approach. However, more recent work (e.g., Fagan & Tyler, 2005) has used procedural justice to explain the legal socialization process. This article presents 2 studies that expand this approach by testing a procedural justice model of legal socialization in terms of legal and nonlegal authority. In Study 1, participants completed surveys assessing the degree to which they perceived 3 authorities (police officers, parents, and teachers) as procedurally fair, the degree to which they perceived the authorities as legitimate, how cynical they were about laws, and the extent of their rule violation during the past 6 months. Across all 3 authorities, legitimacy and legal cynicism mediated the relation between procedural justice and rule violation. Study 2 examined the model with the same 3 authority types using experimental methods. Participants read 3 scenarios describing an interaction between an adolescent and an authority figure where a rule is enforced. Within each scenario, we manipulated whether the adolescent had a voice and whether the authority enforced the rule impartially. After reading each scenario, participants rated the authority's legitimacy, their cynicism toward the authority's rule, and the likelihood they would violate the rule. Again, legitimacy and rule cynicism mediated the relation between impartiality, voice, and rule violation. In addition, impartiality had a stronger effect in the parent and teacher scenarios, whereas voice had a stronger effect in the police scenario. Results are discussed in terms of expanding legal socialization to nonlegal contexts and applying legal socialization research to prevention and intervention strategies.

Don't trust anyone over 30: parental legitimacy as a mediator between parenting style and changes in delinquent behavior over time.

Both law and society scholars and developmental psychologists have focused on the legitimacy of authority figures, although in different domains (police versus parents). The purpose of the current research is to bridge these two fields by examining the relations among parenting style (i.e., authoritarian, authoritative, permissive), the perception of parental legitimacy, and changes in delinquency over time. It is hypothesized that parental legitimacy mediates the relation between parenting style and future delinquent behavior. Middle school and high school students completed questionnaires three times over a period of 18 months. Parenting style and delinquent behavior were measured at time 1, parental legitimacy at time 2, and delinquency again at time 3. The results show that authoritative parenting was positively related to parental legitimacy, while authoritarian parenting was negatively associated with parental legitimacy. Furthermore, parental legitimacy was negatively associated with future delinquency. Structural equation modeling indicated that parental legitimacy mediated the relation between parenting styles and changes in delinquency over the 18-month time period. The implications for parenting style and parental legitimacy affecting delinquent behavior are discussed.