Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorCherney, Adrianen_US
dc.contributor.authorMurphy, Kristinaen_US
dc.date.accessioned2017-04-24T13:28:43Z
dc.date.available2017-04-24T13:28:43Z
dc.date.issued2011en_US
dc.date.modified2012-02-10T01:58:33Z
dc.identifier.issn17524520en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.1093/police/par030en_US
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10072/42309
dc.description.abstractProcedural justice theory and research have important implications for police policy and practice. There exists a large literature on the topic, with research showing that groups do respond positively to fair and respectful treatment by police. Recent research and debates particularly in the United Kingdom and Australia have drawn attention to the different and varied ways in which procedural justice has an impact on police legitimacy and cooperation with police, and the mechanisms through which this occurs. This has implications for how police scholars and practitioners understand and study police legitimacy. The authors aim to make a contribution to this emerging body of work by highlighting limitations with current procedural justice research and argue that the issues of contingency and variability have not been adequately addressed. We argue this is important when it comes to the policing of ethnic communities. The article focuses on attitudes towards the law and social distancing to highlight how procedural justice outcomes can vary across groups and contexts. In particular, we draw on Braithwaite's (2009) theory of social distancing to explain how people's willingness to cooperate with police can be influenced by their motivational posturing. This highlights the psychological mechanisms that impact on the effectiveness of a process-based model of policing.en_US
dc.description.peerreviewedYesen_US
dc.description.publicationstatusYesen_US
dc.languageEnglishen_US
dc.language.isoen_US
dc.publisherOxford University Pressen_US
dc.publisher.placeUnited Kingdomen_US
dc.relation.ispartofstudentpublicationNen_US
dc.relation.ispartofpagefrom228en_US
dc.relation.ispartofpageto235en_US
dc.relation.ispartofissue3en_US
dc.relation.ispartofjournalPolicingen_US
dc.relation.ispartofvolume5en_US
dc.rights.retentionYen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchCriminological Theoriesen_US
dc.subject.fieldofresearchcode160204en_US
dc.titleUnderstanding the Contingency of Procedural Justice Outcomesen_US
dc.typeJournal articleen_US
dc.type.descriptionC1 - Peer Reviewed (HERDC)en_US
dc.type.codeC - Journal Articlesen_US
gro.date.issued2011
gro.hasfulltextNo Full Text


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

  • Journal articles
    Contains articles published by Griffith authors in scholarly journals.

Show simple item record