CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 600Policing Practices and PerceptionsCriminal Justice and PenologyPublic Policy and Administration Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 28 of the 28 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Public Satisfaction With Police: Using Procedural Justice to Improve Police Legitimacy

Hinds, Lyn, Murphy, Kristina·2007·Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology
DOI 10.1375/acri.40.1.27
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Policing research and theory emphasises the importance of supportive relationships between police and the communities they serve in increasing police effectiveness in reducing crime and disorder. A key reason people support police is that they view police as legitimate. The existing research literature, primarily from the United States, indicates that the most important factor in public assessments of police legitimacy is procedural justice. The present study is the first in an Australian jurisdiction to examine the effect of procedural justice and police legitimacy on public satisfaction with police. Using responses to a large postal survey (n = 2611), findings show that people who believe police use procedural justice when they exercise their authority are more likely to view police as legitimate, and in turn are more satisfied with police services. This study differs to US-based research in the greater importance of people's evaluations of instrumental factors in judgments of police legitimacy. The findings are important as they confirm that people's assessments of fair and effective policing in Australia will be enhanced by policing strategies that emphasise the use of procedural justice in encounters with the public.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1375/acri.40.1.27

Cites

28 of 28 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

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 28 references

Research works printed but not linked: 2

  1. Arbuckle J., 1999, Amos 4.0 user's guide
  2. Tyler T.R., 2000, Hofstra Law Review, 28, 707

Cited by

Sorted by citations

See all 600

Related

Metadata

Authors
Hinds, L., & Murphy, K.
Corresponding author
Hinds, Lyn
ORCID
Murphy, Kristina
Venue
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2007-04
Volume
40
Issue
1
Pages
27-42
ISSN
  • 0004-8658 (ISSN-L)
  • 1837-9273
DOI
10.1375/acri.40.1.27
OpenAlex
W2170726881
Cited by
594
References
28
Citations by year
2026: 18 · 2025: 26 · 2024: 57 · 2023: 39 · 2022: 41 · 2021: 31 · 2020: 66 · 2019: 33 · 2018: 39 · 2017: 39 · 2016: 41 · 2015: 49 · 2014: 31 · 2013: 32 · 2012: 14
FWCI
41.40
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)
Locations
  • Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology (publishedVersion)
  • ANU Open Research (Australian National University) (submittedVersion)
  • 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 › Public Administration › Public Policy and Administration Research
Keywords
procedural justice, police legitimacy, police satisfaction, police-community relations, police authority, public perceptions of policing

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