Cited by 237Policing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and PenologySocial and Intergroup Psychology

Fostering cooperation with the police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to procedural justice-based policing?

Murphy, Kristina, Cherney, Adrian·2011·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology

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

Crossref · 10.1177/0004865811405260

Cites

8 of 8 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?

  • 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

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
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