Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing?
Abstract
Public cooperation with police is essential for the control of crime and disorder. Hence, understanding factors that shape public cooperation with the police is important. However, Australian and international studies show that police find it difficult to elicit cooperation from ethnic communities, this made difficult by the fact that ethnic groups display low levels of trust and confidence in the police. This study examines the role that procedural justice plays in fostering minority group perceptions of police legitimacy and their willingness to cooperate with police. Using survey data collected from 1204 Australian citizens, this study tests whether procedurally fair policing can enhance perceptions of police legitimacy and nurture cooperation among ethnic minorities in Australia. Findings reveal that procedural justice predicts views of police legitimacy more so than instrumental factors for both minority and majority group members. The results also suggest that ethnicity moderates the effect of procedural justice on cooperation; specifically, procedural justice is shown to be less effective for nurturing cooperation among ethnic minorities than majority group members. A group identity perspective is used to explain these findings. The findings also have implications for how the police can foster better relationships with ethnically diverse communities.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Different cultural and ethnic groups have the same perceptions of both the antecedents and consequences of procedural justice.
“Many studies find that different cultural and ethnic groups have the same perceptions of both the antecedents and consequences of procedural justice (Bradford & Jackson, 2010;MacCoun, 2005;Murphy & Cherney, 2011;Tankebe, 2009;Tyler & Huo, 2002).”
From Legitimacy in Policing: A Systematic Review (2013) · cites this paper as Murphy & Cherney, 2011
Cites
Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995) · Psychological Review · doi:10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4 · Cited by 6,682 · see citing works
The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988) · Critical Issues in Social Justice · doi:10.1007/978-1-4899-2115-4 · Cited by 6,585 · cited 2× · see citing works
“Lind and Tyler (1988) argue that the interpersonal treatment people receive from authorities is a particularly important source of information about how much they are perceived as valued members of society.”
BackgroundTyler, T. R. (2006) · doi:10.1515/9781400828609 · Cited by 5,156 · see citing works
A Relational Model of Authority in Groups
Tyler, T. R., & Lind, E. A. (1992) · Advances in Experimental Social Psychology · doi:10.1016/s0065-2601(08)60283-x · Cited by 2,977 · see citing works
Public Satisfaction With Police: Using Procedural Justice to Improve Police Legitimacy
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K. (2007) · Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology · doi:10.1375/acri.40.1.27 · Cited by 594 · see citing works
Self-citationLegitimacy and Deterrence Effects in Counterterrorism Policing: A Study of Muslim Americans
Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S., & Huq, A. Z. (2010) · Law & Society Review · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2010.00405.x · Cited by 370 · see citing works
Encouraging public cooperation and support for police
Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008) · Policing and Society · doi:10.1080/10439460802008660 · Cited by 361 · see citing works
Self-citationVOICE, CONTROL, AND BELONGING: The Double-Edged Sword of Procedural Fairness
MacCoun, R. J. (2005) · Annual Review of Law and Social Science · doi:10.1146/annurev.lawsocsci.1.041604.115958 · Cited by 343 · cited 2× · see citing works
“US-based research has revealed that the underlying dynamics of the fair process effect are similar across ethnic groups (for a review see MacCoun, 2005).”
Background
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Viewing Things Differently: The Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Police Legitimacy
Tankebe, J. (2013) · Criminology · doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2012.00291.x · Cited by 890 · see citing works
Legitimacy in Policing: A Systematic Review
Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013) · Campbell Systematic Reviews: Better Evidence for a Better World · doi:10.4073/csr.2013.1 · Cited by 224 · see citing works
- Authors
- Murphy, K., & Cherney, A.
- Affiliations
- Griffith University (AU)
- The University of Queensland (AU)
- Corresponding author
- Murphy, Kristina
- Venue
- Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology
- Publisher
- SAGE Publications
- Published
- 2011-08
- Volume
- 44
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 235-257
- ISSN
- 0004-8658 (ISSN-L)
- 1837-9273
- OpenAlex
- W2008247439
- Cited by
- 237
- References
- 8
- Citations by year
- 2026: 9 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 20 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 29 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 14 · 2019: 16 · 2018: 20 · 2017: 13 · 2016: 16 · 2015: 29 · 2014: 13 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 58.86
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology (publishedVersion)
- Griffith Research Online (submittedVersion)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
- Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Keywords
- procedural justice, police legitimacy, public cooperation with police, ethnic minorities, trust in police, group identity, police-community relations, Australian 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