CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 716Policing Practices and PerceptionsJudicial and Constitutional StudiesPublic Policy and Administration Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 60 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement.

Open access
Tyler, Tom R., Jackson, Jonathan·2014·Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
DOI 10.1037/a0034514
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The traditional goal of legal authorities has been to obtain widespread public compliance with the law. Empirical research findings have shown that legitimacy—typically operationalized as the perceived obligation to obey and trust and confidence in the relevant institutions—plays an important role in achieving such compliance. But over time the goals of legal authorities have broadened in 2 ways. First, they increasingly include the desire to motivate willing cooperation, with legal authorities and members of the public working together to produce social order. Second, conceptions of the goals of the legal system have broadened to include the importance of promoting public engagement in communities in efforts to build social, political and economic vitality. Drawing on these broader goals—and building upon recent conceptual advances in the meaning of legitimacy—we report findings from a major new national survey of U.S. citizens. We examine the role that legitimacy plays in achieving each of these goals of law and in defining the policies and practices of the police and courts which influence legitimacy. Importantly, we also consider whether a focus on achieving this broader set of goals leads to a need to reexamine the traditional theoretical conception of legitimacy. Our findings support the utility of a multidimensional conception of legitimacy that differentiates between consent to authority and normative justifiability of power. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2014 APA, all rights reserved)

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1037/a0034514

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, 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?

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 60 references

3 of the 60 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 501–600 of 713

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J.
ORCID
Venue
Psychology, Public Policy, and Law
Publisher
American Psychological Association (APA)
Published
2014-02
Volume
20
Issue
1
Pages
78-95
ISSN
  • 1076-8971 (ISSN-L)
  • 1939-1528
DOI
10.1037/a0034514
OpenAlex
W3124082667
Cited by
716
References
60
Citations by year
2026: 49 · 2025: 68 · 2024: 77 · 2023: 62 · 2022: 90 · 2021: 93 · 2020: 58 · 2019: 80 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 28 · 2016: 36 · 2015: 32 · 2014: 10
FWCI
157.61
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Psychology Public Policy and Law (publishedVersion)
  • SSRN Electronic Journal (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Yale Law School
  • New York University
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Judicial and Constitutional Studies
  • Social Sciences › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
public legitimacy, legal authority, legal compliance, public cooperation, citizen participation, police practice, judicial practice, social order, institutional trust

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