CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 616Policing Practices and PerceptionsJudicial and Constitutional StudiesCriminal Justice and Penology

Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal institutions?*

Tyler, Tom R.·2001·Behavioral Sciences & the Law
DOI 10.1002/bsl.438
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Discussions of public trust and confidence in the police and the courts often assume that the key to public feelings is the public's evaluation of the outcomes that the public receives from these legal authorities. In the case of the courts, discontent is often assumed to be linked to issues of cost and delay—instrumental concerns about the outcomes delivered to the public by the courts. In the case of the police, the inability to effectively control crime is frequently seen as driving public evaluations. This article presents an alternative procedural justice based model that links public trust and confidence to views about the manner in which legal authorities treat the public. Drawing upon psychological research about public evaluations of institutions and authorities it is argued that the key issue that shapes public views is a process based evaluation of the fairness of the procedures that the police and courts use to exercise their authority. Analyses from several studies exploring the basis of public views support this procedural justice based model of public evaluation. In addition, the results provide suggestions about the elements of procedures that are central to public judgments about their fairness. Copyright © 2001 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/bsl.438

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Procedural justice is the most important pathway to police legitimacy.

    “It is this procedural approach (referred to as procedural justice) that scholars identify as the most important pathway to police legitimacy (Hinds & Murphy, 2007;Tyler, 2001Tyler, , 2004)).”

    From Legitimacy in Policing: A Systematic Review (2013) · cites this paper as Tyler, 2001

  • Procedural justice is the most common pathway that the police use to increase citizen perceptions of legitimacy.

    “The most common pathway that the police use to increase citizen perceptions of legitimacy is through the use of procedural justice.”

    From Legitimacy in Policing: A Systematic Review (2013) · cites this paper as Tyler, 2001

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Tyler, T. R.
Affiliations
New York University (US)
Corresponding author
Tyler, Tom R.
ORCID
Tyler, Tom R.
Venue
Behavioral Sciences & the Law
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2001-03
Volume
19
Issue
2
Pages
215-235
ISSN
  • 0735-3936 (ISSN-L)
  • 1099-0798
DOI
10.1002/bsl.438
OpenAlex
W2030418315
Cited by
616
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 14 · 2025: 34 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 34 · 2021: 22 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 50 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 38 · 2016: 37 · 2015: 40 · 2014: 32 · 2013: 38 · 2012: 25
FWCI
24.88
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 85 d)
Locations
  • Behavioral Sciences & the Law (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
Keywords
public trust in law enforcement, public trust in courts, procedural justice, police, courts, majority and minority groups, criminal justice outcomes, crime control
MeSH terms
Attitude, Criminal Law, Data Collection, Ethnicity, Humans, Judgment, Minority Groups, Public Opinion, United States, Police

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review