Procedural justice perceptions, legitimacy beliefs, and compliance with the law: a meta-analysis
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
No citation lists for this paper
No citation lists for this paper yet — checked again daily.
References 96 · Cited by 315
- Authors
- Walters, G. D., & Bolger, P. C.
- Affiliations
- Kutztown University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Walters, Glenn D.
- ORCID
- Walters, Glenn D.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Criminology
- Published
- 2018-09-14
- Volume
- 15
- Issue
- 3
- Pages
- 341-372
- ISSN
- 1572-8315 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-3750
- OpenAlex
- W2891119317
- Cited by
- 315
- References
- 96
- Citations by year
- 2026: 37 · 2025: 46 · 2024: 63 · 2023: 37 · 2022: 55 · 2021: 35 · 2020: 27 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 2
- FWCI
- 27.38
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Criminology (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
- Keywords
- procedural justice, legitimacy beliefs, legal compliance, public perception of justice, path analysis, longitudinal data
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
