CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 313Regulation and Compliance StudiesTaxation and Compliance StudiesPolicing Practices and Perceptions

Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law?

Open access
Murphy, Kristina, Tyler, Tom R., Curtis, Amy·2009·Regulation & Governance
DOI 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01043.x
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Procedural justice generally enhances an authority's legitimacy and encourages people to comply with an authority's decisions and rules. We argue, however, that previous research on procedural justice and legitimacy has examined legitimacy in a limited way by focusing solely on the perceived legitimacy of authorities and ignoring how people may perceive the legitimacy of the laws and rules they enforce. In addition, no research to date has examined how such perceptions of legitimacy may moderate the effect of procedural justice on compliance behavior. Using survey data collected across three different regulatory contexts – taxation (Study 1), social security (Study 2), and law enforcement (Study 3) – the findings suggest that one's perceptions of the legitimacy of the law moderates the effect of procedural justice on compliance behaviors; procedural justice is more important for shaping compliance behaviors when people question the legitimacy of the laws than when they accept them as legitimate. An explanation of these findings using a social distancing framework is offered, along with a discussion of the implications the findings have on enforcement.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01043.x

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

  • A perceived lack of legitimacy can in turn cause regulatory non-compliance and ultimately loss of trust in government.

    “A perceived lack of legitimacy can in turn cause regulatory non-compliance and ultimately loss of trust in government (Windholz 2020; Murphy, Tyler, and Curtis 2009).”

    From Ethical Principles in Legal Context: Vaccine Mandates During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Australia (2026) · cites this paper as Murphy, Tyler, and Curtis 2009

    The Results (p. 10) report lower compliance among taxpayers who question the legitimacy of the laws, supporting the claim's link between perceived legitimacy and regulatory compliance. The paper does not establish that a lack of legitimacy causes non-compliance or that non-compliance ultimately leads to a loss of trust in government; its reported findings concern compliance and cooperation, not that proposed sequence. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • An authority (e.g., the police) may be seen to be legitimate while the policies, rules and laws that the authority enforces may be seen to be illegitimate.

    “Further, while an authority (e.g., the police) may be seen to be legitimate, the policies, rules and laws that the authority enforces may be seen to be illegitimate (Murphy, Tyler, & Curtis, 2009).”

    From Legitimacy in Policing: A Systematic Review (2013) · cites this paper as Murphy, Tyler, & Curtis, 2009

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 7

  1. Ayres I, Braithwaite J (1992) Responsible Regulation: Transcending the Deregulation Debate . Oxford University Press, New York.
  2. Black D (1976) The Behavior of Law . Academic Press, San Diego.
  3. Black J (2001) Managing Discretion. Paper presented at the Australian Law Commission Conference on 'Penalties: Policies and Practice in Government Regulation' , Jun 2001, Sydney.
  4. Easton D (1958) The Perception of Authority and Political Change. In: Friedrich CJ (ed) Authority , pp. 170-196. Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA.
  5. Skogan WG, Frydl K (2004) Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices. Committee on Law and Justice, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education, National Research Council. The National Academies Press, Washington, DC.
  6. Thornberry TP, Krohn MD (2000) The Self-report Method for Measuring Delinquency and Crime. In: Duffee D (ed) Measurement and Analysis of Crime and Justice: Criminal Justice 2000 , Vol. 4, US Department of Justice, Washington, DC.
  7. UK Inland Revenue (2001) Managing Customer Relationships: What Does Compliance Mean in The Future? Inland Revenue Workshop, June 2001.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Murphy, K., Tyler, T. R., & Curtis, A.
Affiliations
  • Deakin University (AU)
  • New York University (US)
  • Australian National University (AU)
Corresponding author
Murphy, Kristina
ORCID
Venue
Regulation & Governance
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-03
Volume
3
Issue
1
Pages
1-26
ISSN
  • 1748-5983 (ISSN-L)
  • 1748-5991
DOI
10.1111/j.1748-5991.2009.01043.x
OpenAlex
W2058242197
Cited by
313
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 10 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 19 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 25 · 2019: 13 · 2018: 18 · 2017: 27 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 27 · 2014: 20 · 2013: 27 · 2012: 13
FWCI
35.33
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor, 37 d)
Locations
  • Regulation & Governance (publishedVersion)
  • Own your potential (DEAKIN) (submittedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Business, Management and Accounting › Strategy and Management › Regulation and Compliance Studies
  • Social Sciences › Economics, Econometrics and Finance › Economics and Econometrics › Taxation and Compliance Studies
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
Keywords
procedural justice, regulatory compliance, legitimacy of authority, compliance behavior, social distancing, taxation, social security, law enforcement, enforcement, moderating effect

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