CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 280Policing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and PenologyDeception detection and forensic psychology

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 215 of the 215 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Effective Law Enforcement

Tyler, Tom R., Goff, Phillip Atiba, MacCoun, Robert J.·2015·Psychological Science in the Public Interest
DOI 10.1177/1529100615617791
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

The May 2015 release of the report of the President's Task Force on 21st Century Policing highlighted a fundamental change in the issues dominating discussions about policing in America. That change has moved discussions away from a focus on what is legal or effective in crime control and toward a concern for how the actions of the police influence public trust and confidence in the police. This shift in discourse has been motivated by two factors-first, the recognition by public officials that increases in the professionalism of the police and dramatic declines in the rate of crime have not led to increases in police legitimacy, and second, greater awareness of the limits of the dominant coercive model of policing and of the benefits of an alternative and more consensual model based on public trust and confidence in the police and legal system. Psychological research has played an important role in legitimating this change in the way policymakers think about policing by demonstrating that perceived legitimacy shapes a set of law-related behaviors as well as or better than concerns about the risk of punishment. Those behaviors include compliance with the law and cooperation with legal authorities. These findings demonstrate that legal authorities gain by a focus on legitimacy. Psychological research has further contributed by articulating and demonstrating empirical support for a central role of procedural justice in shaping legitimacy, providing legal authorities with a clear road map of strategies for creating and maintaining public trust. Given evidence of the benefits of legitimacy and a set of guidelines concerning its antecedents, policymakers have increasingly focused on the question of public trust when considering issues in policing. The acceptance of a legitimacy-based consensual model of police authority building on theories and research studies originating within psychology illustrates how psychology can contribute to the development of evidence-based policies in the field of criminal law.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1529100615617791

Cites

215 of 215 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Research works printed but not linked: 43

  1. Abuwala R., 2008, The effects of the Harlem housing court on tenant perceptions of justice
  2. Bayley D., 2010, The changing environment for policing, 1985-2008
  3. Bond C. E. W., 1996, Crime Prevention Studies, 6, 153
  4. Burke K., 2008, Court Review, 44, 4
  5. Denton D., 2007, Court Review, 44, 44
  6. Farole D. J., 2007, Public perceptions of New York’s courts: The New York State Residents Survey
  7. Fischer C., 2014, Legitimacy and procedural justice: A new element of police leadership
  8. French J. R. P., 1959, Studies in social power, 150
  9. Geller W., 2009, Building our way out of crime: The transformative power of police-community relationships
  10. Harris L. T., 2011, Journal of Psychology, 219, 175
  11. Hipple N. K., 2011, Crime & Delinquency, 60, 1131
  12. Jackson J., 2013, Improving legitimacy of criminal justice in emerging democracies, 137
  13. Jain E., 2015, Stanford Law Review, 67, 809
  14. Judicial Council of California., 2011, Procedural fairness in California: Initiatives, challenges, and recommendations
  15. 2006, Justice in focus: The strategic plan for California Judicial Branch, 2006–2012
  16. Katz D., 1976, Bureaucratic encounters
  17. Kohler-Hausmann I., 2014, Stanford Law Review, 66, 611
  18. Leben S., 2011, Paper presented at the Educational Conference of the Utah State Courts, Midway
  19. MacCoun R. J., 1988, Alternative adjudication
  20. Mazerolle L., 2012, Criminology, 51, 1
  21. McArdle A., 2001, Zero tolerance
  22. McCluskey J. D., 2003, Police requests for compliance: Coercive and procedurally just tactics
  23. McCord J., 2001, Juvenile justice
  24. Meares T. L., Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology
  25. Myhill A., 2011, It’s a fair cop? Police legitimacy, public cooperation and crime reduction
  26. National Review. (2013, July 2). Stop-and-frisk works. National Review Online. Retrieved from http://www.nationalreview.com/article/352533/stop-and-frisk-works-editors
  27. 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00096.x · DOI
  28. Papachristos A. V., 2012, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 397
  29. Paternoster R., 2006, Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 100, 765
  30. President’s Task Force on 21st Century Policing., 2015, Interim Report
  31. 1968, Report of the National Advisory Commission on Civil Disorders
  32. Rottman D. B., 2005, Trust and confidence in the California courts
  33. Schultz M. F., 2006, Berkeley Technology Law Journal, 21, 651
  34. Sherman L. W., 1998, Experiments in restorative policing
  35. 10.5465/amr.1995.9508080331 · DOI · Paper page
  36. Suurd C. D., 2009, A test of the relationship among justice facets, overall justice, strain and turnover intention in a military context
  37. Tomkins A. J., 2012, Court Review, 48, 96
  38. Tyler T. R., 2008, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231
  39. Tyler T. R., 2014, Journal of Experimental Legal Studies, 11, 751
  40. Tyler T. R., 2002, Trust in the law
  41. Tyler T. R., 2014, Albany Law Review, 77, 101
  42. Weber M., 1968, Economy and society
  43. Wilson J. Q., 1982, The Atlantic, 249, 29

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 280

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Tyler, T. R., Goff, P. A., & MacCoun, R. J.
Affiliations
  • Yale University (US)
  • University of California, Los Angeles (US)
  • Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Tyler, Tom R.
ORCID
Venue
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2015-12
Volume
16
Issue
3
Pages
75-109
ISSN
  • 1539-6053 (ISSN-L)
  • 1529-1006
DOI
10.1177/1529100615617791
OpenAlex
W2181563492
Cited by
280
References
215
Citations by year
2026: 42 · 2025: 23 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 21 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 24 · 2020: 30 · 2019: 34 · 2018: 23 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 12
FWCI
118.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Gothic.net (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
  • Social Sciences › Law › Criminal Justice and Penology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Deception detection and forensic psychology
Keywords
police legitimacy, public trust in police, procedural justice, legal compliance
MeSH terms
Criminal Law, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Jurisprudence, Social Justice, United States, Police, Trust, Law Enforcement

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