This study explores two issues about police legitimacy. The first issue is the relative importance of police legitimacy in shaping public support of the police and policing activities, compared to the importance of instrumental judgments about (1) the risk that people will be caught and sanctioned for wrongdoing, (2) the performance of the police in fighting crime, and/or (3) the fairness of the distribution of police services. Three aspects of public support for the police are examined: public compliance with the law, public cooperation with the police, and public willingness to support policies that empower the police. The second issue is which judgments about police activity determine people's views about the legitimacy of the police. This study compares the influence of people's judgments about the procedural justice of the manner in which the police exercise their authority to the influence of three instrumental judgments: risk, performance, and distributive fairness. Findings of two surveys of New Yorkers show that, first, legitimacy has a strong influence on the public's reactions to the police, and second, the key antecedent of legitimacy is the fairness of the procedures used by the police. This model applies to both white and minority group residents.

No abstract

No abstract

Distributive justice theories (e.g., relative deprivation, equity, justice motive theory) have consistently postulated that disputants' satisfaction with the outcomes of social conflict is influenced by the extent to which allocations are consistent with salient standards of deservingness or entitlement. So, for example, relative deprivation theorists (e.g. Crosby, 1976; Davis, 1959; Gurr, 1970; Runciman, 1966) have shown that feelings of indignation or outrage stemming from deprivation are moderated by notions of entitlement. They revealed that judgments about what individuals feel they deserve are based on comparisons with what others within their group or within a similar context have received rather than on absolute outcomes. This theory explains why those in an objectively positive situation can evaluate their situation negatively and why those in a seemingly poor situation can view their situation optimistically. Crosby's (1982), study of working women identified two preconditions essential for relative deprivation-lesser outcomes than one wants and lesser outcomes than one deserves. Similarly, equity theorists (Adams, 1965; Homans, 1961; Walster, Berscheid, & Walster, 1976) assume that a n individual's sense of equity acts as a powerful norm influencing social behavior. This norm is comprised of the belief that outcomes, both positive and negative, should be proportional to ones contribution and involvement within the group. When an inequitable distribution of outcomes is perceived, it is argued that individuals will experience "inequity distress". It is theorized that the dissonance this perception creates will motivate the individual to restore equity. Adams (1963) asserted that even individuals profiting from inequity would feel "inequity distress" and attempt to restore equity. Thus, individuals experience dissonance both when they get more as well as less than they perceive they deserve. Although distributive justice theories have consistently included notions of deservingness in their models, none have located it as centrally as Mel Lerner's Justice Motive Theory (Lerner,