Is It the What or the How? The Roles of High-Policing Tactics and Procedural Justice in Predicting Perceptions of Hostile Treatment: The Case of Security Checks at Ben-Gurion Airport, Israel

Abstract

What affects perceptions of hostile treatment by police, characterized by feelings such as humiliation and intimidation? Is it what the police do to the citizen, or is it about how they do it? The important effects of procedural justice are well documented in the policing literature. Yet, it is not clear how high‐policing tactics, coupled with procedural justice, affect one's sense of hostile treatment: is it the case that what the police do does not matter as long as they follow the principles of procedural justice, or do some invasive or unpleasant tactics produce negative emotions regardless of the amount of procedural justice displayed by the officer? In the present study we examine this question in the context of security checks at Ben‐Gurion Airport, Israel. Using a survey of 1,970 passengers, we find that the behavioral elements of procedural justice are an important antidote, mitigating the negative effects of four “extra” screening measures on the perceived hostility of the checks. At the same time, two security measures retain an independent and significant effect. We discuss the implications of our findings and hypothesize about the characteristics of policing practices that are less sensitive to procedural justice.

The Effect of Paramilitary Protest Policing on Protestors' Trust in the Police: The Case of the “Occupy Israel” Movement

“…In this sense our findings add to a recent, important debate—is public trust primarily about what the police do or about how they do it? Our findings echo those of Jonathan‐Zamir et al (): procedurally just treatment is critical, but what police do (in our case—use PPUs or riot control measures) also affects citizen attitudes, irrespective of how they do it.…”

Unfamiliarity and Procedural Justice: Litigants' Attitudes Toward Civil Justice in Southern China

“…Procedural justice can promote satisfaction, belief in the legitimacy of authority, and willingness to comply and cooperate with the law (Creutzfeldt and Bradford 2016; Lind and Tyler 1988; Paternoster et al 1997; Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler 1984, 1988; 1990). Scholars generally believe that procedural justice can play the role of a “cushion of support,” alleviating the negative emotions elicited by unfavorable outcomes (Jonathan‐Zamir et al 2016; Lind and Tyler 1988; Tyler 1984, 1990; Tyler et al 1997; Tyler and Allan Lind 1992). People view “bad” distributive outcomes more positively if they result from a fair procedure they experience as fair.…”

‘Now that you mention it, museums probably are a target’: museums, terrorism and security in the United Kingdom

“…Similar findings were reported by Blackwood, Hopkins, andReicher (2013, 2015) whose research with Scottish Muslims highlighted how this community considered airports as a site of humiliation, distress, injustice and, on occasion, fear, where encounters with authorities and security actors produce both personal and collective anxieties that have profound effects on identities, citizenship and belonging. Such accounts of the consequences of the securitisation of everyday spaces are not limited to Scotland; similar experiences have been highlighted in studies in other areas of the UK (see Choudhury and Fenwick 2011), as well as further afield (see Salter 2008;Hasisi and Weisburd 2011;Jonathan-Zamir, Hasisi, and Margalioth 2016;Ergün, Açıkel, and Turhan 2017).12 Importantly, Zedner (2009, 149) highlights that security technologies, policies and practices that are initially considered as 'exceptional', such as those at airports, are subsequently replicated and routinised in other spaces of everyday life. Museums have become a firm case in point, where visitors can now routinely expect to be subject to and experience bag searches, hostile vehicle mitigation (HVM), and the screening and interpretation of 'suspicious ' visitor behaviour.13 In this way, the museum can now be appropriately considered as another site in the securitisation of 'frontline leisure' (see Lisle 2013).14 Significantly, however, even amongst museum security managers our fieldwork highlighted a recognition that whilst counter-terrorism security measures are now necessary the museum should not become a 'fortress', and any such practices must be balanced against the museum's core purpose and values of diverse public engagement (Billy).…”