trustinthepolicetheinfluenceofproceduraljustice.pdf – Assignment: – EssaysForYou




Crime & Delinquency2015, Vol. 61(4) 610 –640
© The Author(s) 2014Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navDOI: 10.1177/0011128714530548
cad.sagepub.com
Article
Trust in the Police: The Influence of Procedural Justice and Perceived Collective Efficacy
Justin Nix,1 Scott E. Wolfe,1 Jeff Rojek,1 and Robert J. Kaminski1
AbstractTyler’s process-based model of policing suggests that the police can enhance their perceived legitimacy and trustworthiness in the eyes of the public when they exercise their authority in a procedurally fair manner. To date, most process-based research has focused on the sources of legitimacy while largely overlooking trust in the police. The present study extends this line of literature by examining the sources of trust in the police. In particular, emerging research has revealed that neighborhood context influences attitudes toward the police but much less attention has been given to exploring the role individuals’ perceptions of their neighborhood play in shaping such evaluations. Therefore, the present study considers whether individuals’ perceptions of collective efficacy serve as a social-psychological cognitive orientation that influences levels of trust in the police. Using data from a recently conducted mail survey of a random sample of 1,681 residents from a metropolitan city, we find that procedural justice evaluations are a primary source of trust in the police. At the same time, however, level of perceived collective efficacy is positively associated with trust even after accounting for procedural justice. The findings suggest that police procedural fairness is vitally important to establishing trust from the public but peoples’
1University of South Carolina, Columbia, SC, USA
Corresponding Author:Justin Nix, Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice, University of South Carolina, 1305 Greene Street, Columbia, SC 29208, USA. Email: nix2@mailbox.sc.edu
530548 CADXXX10.1177/0011128714530548Crime & DelinquencyNix et al.research-article2014
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 611
cognitive orientation toward their neighborhood context partially shapes the level of trustworthiness they afford to the police.
Keywordspolicing, procedural justice, collective efficacy, trust, legitimacy
Tyler’s (1990, 2004; Tyler & Huo, 2002) theory of procedural justice—often referred to as the process-based model of policing—suggests that the police can enhance their perceived legitimacy and trustworthiness in the eyes of the public by exercising authority in a procedurally fair manner. Establishing legitimacy or trust represents a desirable alternative to using coercive force to obtain compliance from citizens. Moreover, when citizens trust the police, they are more likely to cooperate with them by reporting crimes as well as informally enforcing societal norms. Empirical research offers support for the process-based model: Individuals who believe police actions are proce-durally fair are more likely to perceive them as a legitimate and trustworthy institution (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Tyler (2005; Tyler & Huo, 2002) also suggests that procedural justice influences normative evaluations of the police (e.g., trust and legitimacy) net of other individual or situational factors (see also, Gau, Corsaro, Stewart, & Brunson, 2012).
The process-based model of policing has received considerable research attention over the past decade but two important areas remain open to empiri-cal scrutiny. First, as Bottoms and Tankebe (2012) point out, there is no uni-versally recognized definition of legitimacy. Researchers have typically measured legitimacy as trust in the police and perceived obligation to obey (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002); however, more recent studies suggest that these constructs are theoretically and empirically distinct and should therefore be treated as separate concepts (Gau, 2011, 2013; Reisig, Bratton, & Gertz, 2007). Despite such findings, the majority of research has focused on legitimacy—much less attention has been given to the sources of trust in the police. Given the evidence that evaluations of trust and legitimacy are separate concepts yet part of the same process-based nor-mative evaluation, examining the antecedents of trust in law enforcement is important on both theoretical and policy-oriented grounds. Second, and most important for our study, evidence exists demonstrating that neighborhood context influences individuals’ attitudes toward the police (Reisig & Parks, 2000, 2003; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). While important, the majority of this literature focuses on compositional effects and neglects the potentially important role that individuals’ perceptions of neighborhood conditions have on their evaluations of legal actors. Recently Gau and her colleagues (2012)
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

612 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
presented results showing that neighborhood context does not affect evalua-tions of police legitimacy but individual perceptions of neighborhood cohe-sion influence such evaluations. Thus, preliminary evidence suggests that the cognitive orientation individuals have toward law enforcement may be par-tially shaped by their perceptions of the environment in which they are situ-ated. It is particularly important to examine such an influence on perceptions of police trustworthiness considering the social-psychological underpinnings of Tyler’s theory. If perceptions of neighborhood conditions are associated with trust in the police, the question that remains is what role evaluations of procedural justice play in the relationship. Tyler’s arguments would suggest that individuals’ evaluations of police officer fairness should override the effects of such extraneous variables, yet no research to date has been able to examine this question.
The current study examines these issues using data from a recently col-lected mail survey of a random sample of citizens from a mid-sized metropo-lis in the southeastern United States (N = 1,681). Our analyses move the current procedural justice literature forward in several ways. First, going beyond prior process-based model research that typically examines evalua-tions of legitimacy, we focus our analysis on the predictors of trust in the police. Second, we determine whether perceptions of neighborhood collec-tive efficacy affect individuals’ levels of trust in the police after accounting for evaluations of procedural justice. Specifically, we consider whether per-ceptions of procedural justice, as Tyler postulates, diminishes the effect of other variables—including perceived collective efficacy—on trust. We con-clude by discussing theoretical and policy implications as well as avenues for future research.
The Process-Based Model of Policing
Being viewed as a legitimate and trustworthy authority is important to the police because such normative evaluations lead to compliance, cooperation, and empowerment from the public (Tyler, 1990). The police cannot be every-where at once and, therefore, must rely heavily on voluntary compliance with the law to maintain social order. In addition, cooperation from the public is essential to the crime suppression function of the police. Citizens cooperate with the police by reporting crimes, working together as a community to enforce social norms, and supporting the allocation of public resources to their local police department. Cooperation is especially important because it increases the likelihood that citizens will comply with police decisions in the long term (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Empowerment involves the willingness of the public to accept police discretionary
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 613
judgments (e.g., about when to make an arrest rather than issue a citation). The police are able to exercise discretion—especially regarding whether or not to use physical force (Bittner, 1972)—only because the public has empowered them to do so.
Tyler and Huo (2002) seem to suggest that the concept of trust is distinct from legitimacy. In their influential study of trust of legal authorities, how-ever, they go on to measure trust as one of two components of legitimacy (the other being perceived obligation to obey). Scholars have recently questioned the validity of this conceptualization of legitimacy and demonstrated that trust and perceived obligation to obey do not load together onto a single fac-tor (Gau, 2011, 2013; Reisig et al., 2007). Similarly, Tyler (2006) has noted that the correlation between trust and obligation to obey tends to be small (e.g., r = .26). Recently proposed conceptualizations of legitimacy have in fact defended the exclusion of trust as a component of the concept. For exam-ple, Jackson et al. (2012) define legitimacy as a sense of moral alignment with the police in addition to a perceived obligation to obey. The police as an institution are empowered by the public to maintain order and enforce laws. Legitimacy, as Jackson and his colleagues suggest, partially hinges on the degree to which the police and the public share common beliefs about the maintenance of this social order (see also Tankebe, 2013).
Conversely, trust in the police involves a feeling that officers will exercise their authority with the community’s best interest in mind. Tyler and Huo (2002) state that, “[t]rust in a person’s motives or character refers to his or her internal, unobservable characteristics that are inferred from his or her observ-able actions” (p. 58). Trust is a particularly important concept with respect to orientations toward law enforcement because citizens normally have limited knowledge about the actions taken by police and lack expertise in judging said actions (Tyler & Huo, 2002). The level of trust one has in the police is based on “cues that communicate information about the intentions and char-acter” of the police (Jackson et al., 2012, p. 4). Thus, trust evaluations serve as a normative attitude regarding how benevolent law enforcement actions are and can be held regardless of the amount of personal contact one has with the police (Tyler & Huo, 2002). Paralleling arguments regarding legitimacy, people are believed to comply and cooperate with the police because they trust that officers will behave in predictable and acceptable ways. It is impor-tant to note that one could view the police as a legitimate authority without necessarily trusting certain officers (Hawdon, 2008). In the end, treating trust as a distinct concept is supported on both theoretical and empirical grounds (Gau, 2011, 2013; Reisig et al., 2007; Tyler, 2006). Accordingly, exploring the correlates of trust evaluations is worthy of empirical inquiry (Hawdon, 2008; Jackson et al., 2012; Sargeant, Murphy, & Cherney, 2013; Tyler, 2005).
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

614 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
Procedural justice theory recognizes that individuals place value on the fairness of the procedures used to reach an outcome—oftentimes more so than the fairness of the actual outcome (Thibaut & Walker, 1975). Overwhelming evidence suggests that procedural justice is the main anteced-ent of evaluations of police legitimacy (Gau, 2011, 2013; Gau et al., 2012; Reisig et al., 2007; Tankebe, 2013; Tyler, 1990; Wolfe, 2011). Prior research has focused primarily on legitimacy with less attention given to the sources of trust. Existing theoretical arguments and empirical evidence stemming mainly from Tyler’s work indicates that the same process-based model applies to normative evaluations of trust in the police (Gau, 2011, 2013; Reisig et al., 2007; Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Tyler (2005) found that perceived police fairness exerts the strongest influence on the public’s level of trust. This begs the question, “What do individuals regard as fair?” In part, the answer varies depending on the particular situation. Tyler (2003) speci-fies two key elements of fairness: quality of decision making and quality of interpersonal treatment. When officers remain neutral and use objective rea-soning to make decisions—as opposed to personal biases—citizens are more likely to believe their decisions are fair. Likewise, being treated with dignity and respect will lead citizens to feel an officer is being fair. A third element emerges pertaining specifically to resolving disputes: participation in the decision-making process (Tyler, 2005). Citizens who are involved in a dis-pute value the opportunity to express their side of the story prior to any solu-tion being reached. Officers who provide each of the involved parties with this opportunity are more likely to be perceived as exercising their discretion fairly. Regardless of the scenario, “authorities become more highly trusted when they are seen to exercise their authority in fair ways” (Tyler, 2003, p. 299). In other words, officers who remain objective, respectful, and polite, and provide citizens with an opportunity to express their views prior to mak-ing a decision are more likely to be viewed as trustworthy in the eyes of the public. Beyond Tyler’s own tests, relatively little empirical evidence exists pertaining to the connection between procedural justice and trust in the police—a gap addressed by the present study.
Another antecedent of trust is distributive justice, which focuses on per-ceived fairness of the outcome rather than the process. According to distribu-tive justice theories, individuals are more accepting of outcomes if they are equal to those received by similarly situated others. As the name suggests, individuals place importance on the equal distribution of justice across differ-ent societal groups (Sarat, 1977). For instance, Tyler and Wakslak (2004) found that perceived racial profiling by police officers is associated with lower levels of public support for the police. Moreover, individuals in their study who believed the police engage in profiling expressed less willingness
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 615
to comply with authorities. Tyler (2005) has also demonstrated that trust is influenced by perceptions of distributive justice but procedural justice exerts the strongest influence.
Finally, individual differences may influence levels of trust in the police. For decades, scholars have pointed to the importance of demographic charac-teristics such as race, gender, and age when examining attitudes toward the police. Numerous studies have found that minorities have less favorable opinions of the police than Whites (Engel, 2005; Wu, Sun, & Triplett, 2009). Likewise, research has demonstrated that minorities tend to be more distrust-ful of the police (Hindelang, 1974; Lasley, 1994; Tyler, 2005). Regarding age, most studies suggest that as individuals get older, they generally express more favorable opinions about the police (Frank, Brandl, Cullen, & Stichman, 1996; Ren, Cao, Lovrich, & Gaffney, 2005; Wu & Sun, 2009). Research regarding the relationship between gender and attitudes toward police is less conclusive: Some studies have found that females express more favorable attitudes (Cao, Frank, & Cullen, 1996), while others suggest gender is insig-nificant (Frank et al., 1996; Lai & Zhao, 2010; Ren et al., 2005). In their study, which focused specifically on trust in police, Wu and Sun (2009) found that gender did not significantly influence levels of trust. Other than demo-graphics, recent research has shown that individual differences in self-control and emotion influence the relationship between procedural justice, legiti-macy, and compliance (Murphy & Tyler, 2008; Reisig, Wolfe, & Holtfreter, 2011; Wolfe, 2011).
Despite the various sources of trust in the police, the key argument of Tyler’s (1990) process-based theory is that procedural justice judgments are the primary antecedent. That is, people’s trust in the police is most impor-tantly shaped by how fair they perceive officer actions to be and to a much lesser extent by the fairness of outcome distribution or individual differences. An emerging body of research calls into question this proposition and sug-gests that individuals’ contextual environments exert important effects on their evaluations of legal actors such as the police.
Perceived Collective Efficacy and Trust in the Police
Sociological inquiry appreciates that neighborhood context plays an impor-tant role in shaping resident attitudes and perceptions. Ross and Jang (2000), for instance, demonstrated that individuals situated in communities with greater amounts of disorder reported significantly higher levels of fear and mistrust of fellow neighborhood residents. Similarly, Ross, Mirowsky, and Pribesh (2001) showed that people who live in communities where the threat
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

616 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
of victimization is common are more likely to feel powerless in the fight against becoming a victim. This sense of powerlessness serves to intensify mistrust of one’s neighbors. Ecological conditions have also been shown to influence perceptions of neighborhood disorder (Sampson & Raudenbush, 2004), safety (Austin, Furr, & Spine, 2002), and victimization risk (Pickett, Chiricos, Golden, & Gertz, 2012). In short, negative attitudes are partly the result of objective and subjective indicators of structural disadvantages.
Variation in neighborhood characteristics also matters with respect to atti-tudes toward the police (see, for example, Brunson & Gau, 2011; Decker, 1981; Weitzer, 1999; Weitzer & Tuch, 2004) and the law more generally (see, for example, Kirk & Matsuda, 2011). In their now seminal study, Sampson and Bartusch (1998) found that respondents from neighborhoods with greater concentrated disadvantage tended to have higher levels of dissatisfaction with the police and an overall cynical perception of the law and legal actors. In their words, “there is an ecological structuring to normative orientations—‘cognitive landscapes’ where crime and deviance are more or less expected and institutions of criminal justice are mistrusted” (Sampson & Bartusch, 1998, p. 800). Sun, Hu, Wong, He, and Li (2013) recently used a unique sample of Chinese respondents to show that disadvantaged context dimin-ishes trust in neighbors, which hinders trust in the police (see also Reisig & Parks, 2000, 2003; Wu et al., 2009).
Explanations for the relationship between context and attitudes toward the police and the legal system are largely grounded in subcultural theory. Indeed, in the social disorganization tradition, structural disadvantages such as pov-erty, racial and ethnic heterogeneity, and residential mobility produce mutual distrust and reduced social cohesion among community residents (Anderson, 1999; Kornhauser, 1978; Sampson & Groves, 1989; Shaw & McKay, 1942). The obstruction of common values, beliefs, and norms governing appropriate behavior fosters the emergence of subcultural value systems whereby crime is expected and the law is looked upon with a cynical eye. Sampson and Bartusch (1998) suggest that those subjected to such anomic conditions should be expected to harbor cynical views about the justice system regard-less of whether they personally condemn violence or deviance. After all, the police may be less inclined to work diligently in communities where resi-dents rarely self-regulate social norms (Carr, Napolitano, & Keating, 2007; Gau et al., 2012; Klinger, 1997; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998; Smith, 1986)—a situation that may impede feelings that the police can be trusted to make good decisions for the community.
Although largely a framework of “places,” subcultural theory does not dismiss the important role of individual perceptions of neighborhood condi-tions (Fischer, 1995). Indeed, much contextually focused research relies on
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 617
individual perceptions to create aggregate neighborhood measures (see, for example, Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). In addition, research evi-dence compiled to date clearly shows that compositional differences, while important, fail to fully explain a significant portion of the variation in percep-tions and attitudes (see, for example, Sampson & Bartusch, 1998).
We maintain that part of the answer lies in individual perceptions of neigh-borhood conditions in which people are situated, particularly for concepts such as trust in the police. In other words, an individual’s cognitive orienta-tion toward legal authorities may be largely shaped by how he or she per-ceives community informal social control efforts and mutual cohesion—creating a social-psychological cognitive landscape. Research findings support this view. Gau and associates (2012), for example, recently found that concentrated disadvantage (i.e., a contextual factor) failed to sig-nificantly predict evaluations of police legitimacy but individual perceptions of neighborhood social cohesion played a key role in explaining such norma-tive attitudes. In fact, social cohesion remained associated with legitimacy evaluations even when accounting for central theoretical precursors of legiti-macy such as procedural and distributive justice. While studies reveal that compositional factors influence the development of cognitive landscapes primed for legal authority mistrust, research of this type suggests that the social-psychological cognitive orientation toward one’s neighborhood plight may be as important (see Kochel, 2012, for a related discussion).
Durkheim’s classic view of anomie offers insight into the theoretical con-nection between individual perceptions of neighborhood conditions and atti-tudes toward legal authorities. In its traditional sense, anomie is a condition of normlessness where the standards governing society are no longer held by a majority of citizens. Take for example Sampson and colleagues’ (1997) idea of collective efficacy. Normally viewed as a contextual factor but easily viewed as a social-psychological orientation, perceived collective efficacy in one’s neighborhood would encompass a feeling of common goals and social cohesion among neighbors. A breakdown in perceived collective efficacy is appropriately conceptualized as an anomic cognitive orientation about one’s ecological environment. Recall from earlier discussions that trust in the police is a normative orientation toward a legal actor. Thus, it would be expected that those who view less collective efficacy in their neighborhoods would harbor greater mistrust in the police because normative standards are broken, which allow the spread of cynical views of the police. In short, ano-mie in the form of diminished perceived collective efficacy may structure mistrust in formal social control agents. Research has yet to explore the indi-vidual social-psychological orientation of perceived collective efficacy on normative evaluations of trust in the police—a gap this study aims to address.
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

618 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
To this point, our discussion implies that one’s orientation toward neigh-borhood conditions may be an important source of trust in the police. A strict interpretation of Tyler’s (1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002) process-based model of policing would suggest otherwise. The framework proposes that normative standards of police officer conduct are more important in forming trust from the public. That is, individuals’ perceptions of law enforcement procedural justice should be responsible for establishing trust in the police regardless of the degree of anomie created by perceived lack of informal social controls or mutual trust in a neighborhood. Treating people fairly sends the message to community residents that the government cares about their neighborhood despite the inability of fellow citizens to share similar views (Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). In statistical vernacular, procedural justice should at least partially mediate the effect of perceived collective efficacy on trust in the police. Extant empirical evidence lends preliminary support to this claim because procedural justice has been shown to influence evaluations of legiti-macy even after accounting for respondents’ perceptions of social cohesion and disorder (Gau et al., 2012; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004). Research to date, however, has been unable to explore the extent to which procedural justice accounts for the relationship between perceptions of neighborhood context and evaluations of the police. In particular, left as an open empirical question is whether procedural justice as an antecedent of trust in the police super-sedes the influence of perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy.
If such a relationship exists it also suggests that perceptions of neighbor-hood context may partially set the stage for evaluations of police procedural justice. The theoretical discussions and research reviewed above would sug-gest that such a relationship is possible. That is, perceptions of neighborhood context may partially explain perceptions of procedural justice (Tyler & Wakslak, 2004). Individuals who perceive a breakdown of informal social controls and mutual cohesion in their own neighborhoods may be more likely to maintain cynical views of the law and less likely to perceive police efforts as procedurally fair (Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). However, the extent to which perceptions of neighborhood context influence evaluations of proce-dural justice which ultimately impact feelings of trust in the police remains an unexplored research question.
The Current Study
The purpose of the current study is to move the literatures on attitudes toward the police and procedural justice forward in several ways. First, we address a gap in existing literature by exploring the extent to which procedural justice evaluations are associated with trust in the police. This is important consider-ing that most prior process-based model research examines the antecedents
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 619
of police legitimacy and compelling evidence demonstrating that trust and legitimacy are distinct normative attitudes. Second, we examine whether per-ceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy influence trust in the police. Contextual focused research suggests there may be a relationship but little attention has been given to individual perceptions of neighborhood condi-tions on evaluations of the police—particularly for trust in the police. Third, analyses test a strict interpretation of Tyler’s process-based model by exam-ining whether individuals’ evaluations of procedural justice override the effects of perceived collective efficacy on level of trust in the police. In sum-mary, we expect procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy to have independent effects on trust evaluations (i.e., when examined in separate analyses). Once both concepts are simultaneously examined, however, we expect perceptions of procedural fairness to mediate most of the association between perceived collective efficacy and trust. We conclude the study by discussing the theoretical implications of our findings and suggesting policy-relevant take away messages and productive avenues for future research.
Method
Data
Data for the present study were drawn from a random sample mail survey of residents from a mid-sized, urban city in the southeastern United States. The survey served as one component in the evaluation of a larger directed-inter-vention law enforcement initiative funded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance. Four neighborhoods situated in the largest patrol regions of the city were selected as part of the project and corresponding survey. One of the neighbor-hoods was selected for a targeted enforcement to occur in the future. Two control neighborhoods were selected to closely match the target site in terms of economic disadvantage (e.g., median household income) and crime rate. On average, these three neighborhoods experienced 82.8 Part I crimes per 1,000 residents and had a median household income of US$27,700 in the year prior to the survey. A fourth control neighborhood was selected by the law enforcement agency to serve as a contrast to the three economically dis-advantaged and crime-ridden communities. This more affluent neighborhood (median household income ~US$51,000) experienced 45.5 Part I crimes per 1,000 residents in the year prior to the survey.
One thousand households from each neighborhood were randomly selected to take part in the survey. Questionnaires were administered prior to any changes in police strategic or tactical operations and explored issues such as perceptions of the local law enforcement agency, neighborhood
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

620 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
conditions, and local problems. A modified Dillman method was used to elicit participation in the survey. Specifically, an initial round of surveys was mailed to all households with a cover letter detailing the purpose of the ques-tionnaire and importance of participation. Two weeks later, a reminder post card was mailed to potential respondents to help encourage those who had not responded to do so. Finally, 2 weeks after the post card reminder another full survey and cover letter was mailed to potential respondents. In addition to the mail survey, respondents were also given the option to complete the survey on a secure website (Dillman et al., 2009). As expected, not all addresses in the sampling frame were useable: 323 surveys were returned because they were vacant or otherwise inaccessible addresses. A total of 1,681 residents returned completed surveys representing a 45.72% response rate (over 95% of respondents completed the mail version). This is compa-rable with average response rates generated from other random sample mail surveys (Baruch, 1999). Multiple imputation was used to handle missing data due to item nonresponse, which is available in the Stata 13 mi impute suite (m = 30 imputations). Multiple imputation is a commonly accepted method for dealing with missing data, particularly when only a small handful of cells are missing for items used in the construction of theoretical scales (Acock, 2005; Carlin, Galati, & Royston, 2008; Royston, 2004; Turanovic & Pratt, 2012).
The sample was 66% female and ranged in age from 19 to 96 years with a mean of 57 years. The sample consisted of 52% White, 41% African American, and 7% other racial group respondents. Of these participants, 96% indicated they had lived at their current residence for at least 6 months. In terms of education, about half of the sample had a college degree. Compared with official data on each of the neighborhoods, the sample is comprised of a slightly larger proportion of females and older people but closely approxi-mates the racial composition of the communities. Therefore, the sample rea-sonably represents the population from which it was drawn on these factors. In addition, it is important to note that most respondents were sampled from neighborhoods that have relatively high levels of disadvantage and crime and, therefore, exposure to law enforcement.
Dependent Variable
Consistent with Tyler and Huo’s (2002) conceptualization of motive-based trust, respondents were asked the following question to capture level of trust in the police: “The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for my community.” The item is similar to that used in prior research on trust in the police and measures the degree to which respondents feel that local police officers’ motives and future behavior will be guided by benevolent concerns
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 621
Table 1. Descriptive Statistics.
M SD Min. Max.
Trust in the police 2.853 0.648 1 4Procedural justice 12.506 2.361 4 16Perceived collective efficacy 28.356 5.620 10 40Distributive injustice 3.904 1.473 2 8Perceived disorder 3.656 3.886 0 18Prior victimizationa 0.228 0.474 0 3.367No police contact 0.682 0.466 0 1Citizen-initiated police contact 0.205 0.404 0 1Lower crime neighborhood 0.305 0.460 0 1Police-initiated contact 0.113 0.317 0 1Education 3.242 0.907 1 4Racial minority 0.411 0.492 0 1Female 0.661 0.474 0 1Age years 57.838 16.363 19 96
aNatural log transformation.
about the larger community and its citizens (Tyler, 2001, 2005; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Wu & Sun, 2009). Responses were measured on a 4-point Likert-type scale (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). Therefore, higher scores on the trust item suggest that a respondent believes police actions are gener-ally made in good faith and with the community in mind. The distribution of the item indicates the sample has moderate trust in their police force (M = 2.853, SD = 0.648). However, more than one fifth of respondents either strongly disagreed or disagreed with the question, demonstrating that a large portion of the sample is distrustful of local police officers. Table 1 provides descriptive statistics for all variables used in the analyses.
Independent Variables
Procedural justice. The items used to operationalize procedural justice were adopted from recent examinations of the process-based model of policing (see, for example, Gau et al., 2012; Reisig et al., 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tankebe, 2013). Participants were asked to indicate how strongly they agree that the police in their neighborhood “treat citizens with respect,” “take the time to listen to people,” “treat people fairly,” and “explain their deci-sions to the people they deal with” (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree). The individual items capture key aspects of Tyler’s (1990)
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

622 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
conceptualization of procedural fairness—quality of decision making (e.g., neutrality) and quality of treatment (e.g., status recognition). Principal-axis factor (PAF) analysis demonstrated that the four items loaded onto a single factor (λ = 3.07, factor loadings > .81). The items also demonstrated strong internal consistency (α = .94; see, for example, Cortina, 1993) and, therefore, were summed to form an additive procedural justice scale with higher scores indicating more favorable evaluations of police fairness.
Perceived collective efficacy. Consistent with the above theoretical discussion, perceived collective efficacy is measured at the individual level and concep-tualized as the social-psychological cognitive orientation respondents have toward their neighborhood. We adopted our measures from Sampson and col-leagues (1997), who demonstrated that shared expectations of informal social control and social cohesion/trust form the constituent parts of collective effi-cacy. We measured “informal social control” with five items asking respon-dents to indicate how likely it would be (1 = very unlikely to 4 = very likely) that their neighbors could be counted on to intervene if (a) teenagers were skipping school and hanging out on a street corner, (b) teenagers were spray-painting graffiti on a local building, (c) teenagers were showing disrespect to an adult, (d) a fight broke out near your home, and (e) the fire station close to your home was threatened by budget cuts. “Social cohesion/trust” was cap-tured by asking respondents how strongly they agreed (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) that “people around here are willing to help their neigh-bors,” “this is a close-knit neighborhood,” “people in this neighborhood can be trusted,” “people in this neighborhood generally do not get along with each other” (reverse coded), and “people in this neighborhood do not share the same values” (reverse coded). PAF revealed that the items loaded on their respective informal social control (λ = 4.52, factor loadings > .66) and social cohesion/trust (λ = 2.14, factor loadings > .61) factors. Consistent with Samp-son and associates (1997), and a host of prior research (see, for example, Kochel, 2012; Wells, Schafer, Varano, & Bynum, 2006), we combined all items into a single additive scale to represent individual perceptions of neigh-borhood collective efficacy (α = .86).1
Control Variables
To provide unbiased estimates of the effects of procedural justice and per-ceived collective efficacy on level of trust in the police, several demographic control variables were included in the analyses. Respondent age is measured continuously, and gender (1 = female) and race (1 = racial minority) are dummy coded. Education is measured with four ordered categories (1 = less
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 623
than a high school diploma, 2 = high school diploma or General Education Development, 3 = some college, and 4 = bachelor’s degree or higher). We also used a dummy variable—lower crime neighborhood—to control for whether respondents lived in the more affluent, lower crime rate neighbor-hood included in the sample (1 = yes). Respondents who lived in one of the more homogeneous, high crime rate neighborhoods were coded as 0.2
Additional variables pertaining to individual experiences and perceptions were also included as statistical controls. First, scholars have suggested that the type of contact one has with law enforcement may set the tone for how a citizen evaluates the trustworthiness of police with police-initiated contact leading to more contentious interactions and attitudes (Engel, 2003; Fyfe, 1986; Piquero & Bouffard, 2003; Tyler, 1990). Accordingly, we asked respon-dents to indicate whether they had contact with local police during the 6 months leading up to the survey. Those who answered affirmatively were questioned about the nature of the contact (“Was this contact ever initiated by the officer?”). Using this information, the dummy variables citizen-initiated contact (1 = yes) and no police contact (1 = yes) were constructed and included in the analyses (police-initiated contact served as the reference category).
Second, research reveals that crime victims tend to have less favorable perceptions of police compared with their counterparts with no victimization exposure (Brown & Benedict, 2002). The survey inquired about how many times (0 to 4 or more times) in the previous 6 months respondents had been the victim of each of the following offenses: vehicle stolen, vehicle broken into, property vandalized, home burglarized, physically assaulted (i.e., by someone using hands or feet), assaulted or threatened with a weapon (e.g., knife, club, or gun), and robbed. PAF of the items revealed a single-factor (λ = 2.34, factor loadings > .42) and Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated adequate internal consistency (α = .71). Individuals’ responses were summed to form an additive prior victimization scale. A natural log transformation was used to induce normality in the scale (a constant was added to remove zero responses).
Third, research demonstrates that individuals’ perceptions of disorder within their neighborhoods partially explain attitudes toward the police (Reisig & Parks, 2000; Schafer, Huebner, & Bynum, 2003; Schuck, Rosenbaum, & Hawkins, 2008). Adopting items used in prior disorder research, we asked participants to indicate how much of a problem a series of disorder related activities were in their neighborhood (i.e., garbage, excessive noise, vandalism, drunk drivers, traffic problems, public drunkenness, drug use and sales, loitering, and youth gangs; see, for example, Gau & Pratt, 2008). PAF provided evidence of a unidimensional construct (λ = 3.78, factor loadings > .54) and Cronbach’s alpha demonstrated strong internal
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

624 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
consistency (α = .86). Thus, the items were summated into a perceived disor-der scale.
Finally, perceptions of the fairness of outcomes distributed by the police were taken into consideration. Specifically, respondents were asked how strongly they agree (1 = strongly disagree to 4 = strongly agree) that the police in their neighborhood “give minorities less help because of their race” and “provide better services to wealthy citizens” (r = .73). The items are consistent with those used in previous literature and were combined into a summated distributive injustice scale (Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Wakslak, 2004).
Analytic Strategy
Our analysis proceeds in a series of steps, each of which builds upon the other. First, we use an ordinary least squares (OLS) regression model to estimate the effect of perceived collective efficacy on perceptions of police procedural fairness. This step serves two purposes: (a) It establishes whether perceptions of neighborhood context shape evaluations of police fairness—a topic largely unexplored to date, and (b) it sets up a necessary condition for detecting the mediation effect examined in later stages of the analysis (i.e., the proposed mediated variable [perceived collective efficacy] is associated with the supposed mediator [procedural justice]; see MacKinnon, Krull, & Lockwood, 2000). The second step of the analysis involves three multivari-ate models examining the predictors of trust in the police. We use ordered logistic regression to estimate these models because the dependent vari-able—trust in the police—is ordinal in nature (Long & Freese, 2006). The first ordered logit equation serves as a baseline model to establish whether procedural justice is associated with trust in the police, net of statistical con-trols. The second ordered logit model examines the degree to which percep-tions of neighborhood collective efficacy, net of relevant statistical controls, are associated with level of trust in the police. Finally, in the third model, procedural justice is added back into the equation to determine whether per-ceptions of police fairness mediate the influence of perceived collective effi-cacy on trust.
Several diagnostic tests revealed that harmful levels of collinearity are not present in the multivariate models discussed below. First, all bivariate corre-lations fell below an absolute value of .70, which is typically used as a thresh-old indicative of harmful collinearity (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007). Second, all variance inflation factors from the multivariate models fell below the 4.0 threshold (Tabachnick & Fidell, 2007) and all condition indices below the threshold of 30 (Belsley, Kuh, & Welsch, 1980; Mason & Perreault, 1991).
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 625
Table 2. The Effect of Perceived Collective Efficacy on Procedural Justice.
Procedural justicea
Variable b SE β t test
Perceived collective efficacy .084 .014 .230 5.83**Distributive injustice −.344 .053 −.243 −6.52**Perceived disorder −.038 .020 −1.87Prior victimizationb −.276 .151 −1.83No police contactc .088 .200 0.44Citizen-initiated police contactc .070 .230 0.30Lower crime neighborhood −.320 .154 −.097 −2.08*Education .099 .077 1.27Racial minority −.196 .154 −1.27Female .186 .125 1.50Age years .009 .004 .066 2.20*Intercept 10.818 .663 16.32**F test 15.02**R2 .189
Note. Entries are unstandardized partial regression coefficients (b), robust standard errors, and standardized partial regression coefficients (β).aOrdinary least squares regression equation.bNatural log transformation.c“Police-initiated contact” is the reference category.*p < .05. **p < .01 (two-tailed test).
Results
In Table 2, the procedural justice scale is regressed onto the perceived collec-tive efficacy scale and statistical control variables. To begin, the equation demonstrates that the variables account for nearly 19% of the variation in perceptions of procedural justice (F-test = 15.02, p < .01). Additional analy-ses (not shown) reveal that individuals’ perceptions of neighborhood collec-tive efficacy alone are responsible for 30% of the explained variation. The size of the standardized partial regression coefficient (β) suggests that per-ceived collective efficacy has a moderate, statistically significant effect on procedural justice (β = .230, p < .01). In short, individuals who believe more informal social controls and social cohesion exist (i.e., collective efficacy) within their neighborhood are more likely to perceive the police as exercising their authority in procedurally fair manners. Conversely, this suggests that the anomic conditions created by lack of collective efficacy in a neighborhood makes it more likely for individuals to perceive police officers as
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

626 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
procedurally unjust, regardless of individual demographic differences, prior police contact, prior victimization, and perceptions of disorder or distributive injustice. The distributive injustice scale also reached statistical significance in the model (β = −.243, p < .01). People who believe police officers unfairly distribute outcomes to the public (i.e., based on race or wealth) are less likely to view their actions as procedurally fair. This finding is consistent with a lengthy roster of process-based model studies (see, for example, Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002) and, therefore, lends confidence in the validity of our data. It is also worth mentioning that, on average, respondents who lived in the lower crime neighborhood viewed police offi-cers as less procedurally fair (β = −.097, p < .05) and older folks tended to evaluate the police as more fair (β = .066, p < .05).
The findings from Table 2 are important for several reasons. For one, indi-vidual perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy “matter” in the expla-nation of evaluations of police procedural justice. Thus, the theoretical arguments made above appear to hold a grain of truth. Second, the effect of perceived collective efficacy on procedural justice is almost as strong as the influence of distributive injustice. This is telling because tests of Tyler’s (1990) theory routinely reveal that distributive justice is a key predictor of procedural justice. Clearly, perceptions of one’s neighborhood conditions set the stage for evaluations of the police. Finally, the results establish a basic requirement for detecting possible mediation in the analyses to follow (MacKinnon et al., 2000).
The analyses in Table 3 explore the independent and additive effects of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy on evaluations of trust in the police. Model 1 provides a baseline ordered logistic regression equation that examines the effect of procedural justice on trust. As expected, the equa-tion provides more explanatory power than would be expected by chance alone (Likelihood Ratio χ2 = 372.46, p < .01; McFadden’s R2 = .183). The ordered log-odds coefficient (b) indicates that individuals’ evaluations of police procedural fairness are positively associated with their trust in local law enforcement officers (b = .488, p < .01). When examining these esti-mates, it is important to remember that they correspond with the ordinal nature of the dependent variable. Therefore, the coefficients reveal that unit increases in a particular independent variable correspond with the respective ordered log-odds increase/decrease of being in a higher response category (compared with all lower response categories) on the dependent variable (i.e., strongly disagree, disagree, agree, and strongly agree)—a somewhat compli-cated interpretation indeed. A simplified interpretation involves examining the percent change in the odds for a one standard deviation increase in the independent variable (%StdX). Specifically, a one standard deviation increase
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

627
Tab
le 3
. O
rder
ed L
ogis
tic R
egre
ssio
n Es
timat
es fo
r th
e Ef
fect
s of
Pro
cedu
ral J
ustic
e an
d Pe
rcei
ved
Col
lect
ive
Effic
acy
on T
rust
in
the
Polic
e.
Mod
el 1
aM
odel
2a
Mod
el 3
a
b
(SE)
(%St
dX)
t tes
tb
(SE)
(%St
dX)
t tes
tb
(SE)
(%St
dX)
t tes
t
Proc
edur
al ju
stic
e.4
88 (
.036
)(2
86.5
%)
13.5
6**
——
—.4
77 (
.037
)(2
73.0
%)
13.0
3**
Perc
eive
d co
llect
ive
effic
acy
——
—.0
59 (
.012
)(5
3.7%
)4.
73**
.028
(.0
13)
(24.
6%)
2.16
*
Dis
trib
utiv
e in
just
ice
−.0
24 (
.051
)−
.48
−.1
82 (
.052
)(−
23.2
%)
−3.
47**
−.0
19 (
.051
)−
0.38
Perc
eive
d di
sord
er−
.047
(.0
16)
(−15
.7%
)−
2.93
**−
.047
(.0
17)
(−22
.2%
)−
2.85
**−
.038
(.0
16)
(−14
.6%
)−
2.30
*Pr
ior
vict
imiz
atio
nb−
.026
(.1
25)
−.2
1−
.110
(.1
28)
−0.
85−
.011
(.1
25)
−0.
09N
o po
lice
cont
actc
.219
(.1
71)
1.28
.247
(.1
76)
1.40
.247
(.1
71)
1.45
Citi
zen-
initi
ated
pol
ice
cont
actc
.104
(.2
01)
.51
.143
(.1
98)
0.72
.110
(.2
01)
.55
Low
er c
rim
e ne
ighb
orho
od−
.172
(.1
48)
−1.
17−
.356
(.1
49)
(−14
.8%
)−
2.39
*−
.242
(.1
54)
−1.
58
Educ
atio
n–.
139
(.075
)–1
.86
–.09
3 (.0
69)
−1.
35−
.159
(.0
75)
(−14
.8%
)−
2.12
*R
acia
l min
ority
−.2
21 (
.146
)−
1.52
−.2
78 (
.141
)[−
17.2
%]
−1.
97*
−.2
22 (
.146
)−
1.53
Fem
ale
.149
(.1
18)
1.26
.198
(.1
16)
1.70
.136
(.1
18)
1.15
Age
yea
rs−
.006
(.0
04)
−1.
71−
.001
(.0
04)
−0.
42−
.007
(.0
04)
−1.
79LR
χ2
372.
46**
120.
73**
354.
48**
McF
adde
n’s
R2.1
83.0
63.1
91
Not
e. E
ntri
es a
re u
nsta
ndar
dize
d or
dere
d lo
g-od
ds c
oeffi
cien
t (b
), pe
rcen
t ch
ange
in t
he o
dds
for
a on
e st
anda
rd d
evia
tion
incr
ease
in t
he
inde
pend
ent
vari
able
(%
StdX
), an
d ro
bust
sta
ndar
d er
rors
in p
aren
thes
es.
a Ord
ered
logi
stic
reg
ress
ion
equa
tion.
b Nat
ural
log
tran
sfor
mat
ion.
c “Po
lice-
initi
ated
con
tact
” is
the
ref
eren
ce c
ateg
ory.
*p <
.05.
**p
< .0
1 (t
wo-
taile
d te
st).
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

628 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
in procedural justice increases the predicted odds of being more trusting of the police by over 286%, holding all other variables constant. The strong influence of procedural justice on trust in the police is consistent with the previous literature discussed earlier. In fact, the only other variable in Model 1 that reached statistical significance was perceived disorder (b = .488, p < .01). Regardless of perceptions of procedural justice, individuals who per-ceive more incivilities in their neighborhoods tend to have less trust in the police. Visible signs of disorder may be cognitive cues that the police are not doing a good job and, therefore, cannot be fully trusted.
Model 2 presents parameter estimates from an ordered logistic regression equation that examines the influence of perceived collective efficacy on trust in the police, net of statistical controls. To establish whether perceived collec-tive efficacy has an independent effect on trust, Model 2 excludes procedural justice from the equation. Overall, the equation provides more explanatory power than would be expected by chance (LR χ2 = 120.73, p < .01; McFadden’s R2 = .063). Consistent with our theoretical argument presented earlier, the ordered log-odds coefficient (b) indicates that individuals’ perceptions regarding the amount of collective efficacy in their neighborhood are related to their trust in local police (b = .059, p < .01). Specifically, a one standard deviation increase in perceived collective efficacy is associated with a 53.7% increase in the predicted odds of being more trusting of the police. Therefore, lack of informal social controls and social cohesion in a neighborhood are associated with lack of trust in the police.
The exclusion of procedural justice from the ordered logistic equation seemed to allow several other significant relationships to be observed. As would be expected based on prior literature, distributive injustice is nega-tively associated with trust in the police (b = −.182, p < .01; Tyler & Huo, 2002). A one standard deviation increase in the distributive injustice scale corresponds with 23.2% reduction in trust. In addition, individuals who per-ceived more incivilities in their neighborhood (b = −.047, p < .01), individu-als residing in the lower crime neighborhood (b = −.356, p < .05), and racial minorities (b = −.278, p < .05) tended to have less trust in the police. The “lower crime neighborhood” effect suggests that low levels of criminal activ-ity in a neighborhood do not necessarily translate into a trusting relationship with the police. Perhaps those from higher socioeconomic and educational backgrounds are less inclined to believe that government agents such as the police always have the community’s best interest in mind when making deci-sions. Finally, the finding that racial minorities tended to be less trusting of the police is consistent with prior research (see, for example, Tyler, 2005).
Model 3 presents results from our full ordered logistic regression equation that examines the additive effects of procedural justice and perceived
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 629
collective efficacy on trust, net of controls. Several findings from the analysis merit attention. For starters, when compared with Model 2, the explanatory power of Model 3 is increased significantly with the inclusion of procedural justice (LR χ2 = 354.48, p < .01; McFadden’s R2 = .191). Consistent with the baseline equation (see Model 1), evaluations of procedural justice are associ-ated with trust in the police in the expected direction (b = .477, p < .01). Individuals who believe the police treat people more fairly and with justice are significantly more likely to trust officer motives. In addition, as evidenced by the magnitude of the standardized effect (%StdX = 273.0), procedural justice dominates the prediction of trust in the model. A single standard devi-ation increase in the procedural justice scale is expected to increase trust in the police by a factor of almost three. The other statistically significant effects come nowhere near the magnitude of the procedural justice effect, which is a finding that squares well with prior research demonstrating the explanatory power of the construct (see, for example, Tyler & Huo, 2002). In fact, a com-parison of Models 2 and 3 reveals that accounting for perceptions of proce-dural justice renders the effects of distributive injustice, lower crime neighborhood, and racial minority to statistical insignificance (Tyler, 2005).
Finally, and most important for the present study, the ordered log-odds coefficient (b) for perceived collective efficacy is reduced in magnitude by 52.5% (from .059 in Model 2 to .028 in Model 3). Although perceived collec-tive efficacy still has a significant effect on trust (b = .028, p < .05), the data clearly demonstrate that a large portion of the connection is explained by evaluations of procedural justice. That is to say, folks who perceive less col-lective efficacy in their neighborhood are less likely to feel police behave fairly (see Table 2) and, as a partial consequence of this procedural injustice, are less trusting that law enforcement can make good decisions for their com-munities. At the same time, regardless of process-based evaluations, peoples’ social-psychological cognitive landscapes are partially responsible for shap-ing their level of trust in the police.3
Discussion
The process-based model of regulation holds that compliance, cooperation, and empowerment from the public are more likely to occur when the public perceives authority figures as trustworthy and legitimate (Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). While scholars have devoted a great deal of attention to the sources and consequences of legitimacy, trust remains largely unexplored. The present study demonstrated that perceived collective efficacy partially shapes levels of trust among citizens. However, when perceptions of proce-dural justice are taken into consideration, the effect of perceived collective
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

630 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
efficacy is largely mediated. Both of these findings fill important gaps in the process-based literature. Strict adherence to Tyler’s process-based model would suggest that procedural justice should completely override (i.e., medi-ate) the effect of perceived collective efficacy on levels of trust among citi-zens. Yet, our data reveal that perceived collective efficacy retains significance even after accounting for procedural justice. This suggests that (a) procedural justice is a primary antecedent of trust, and (b) perceived collective efficacy, though not as strong as procedural justice, is important to the explanation of trust in its own right. For that reason, future research should not overlook the effect of citizen perceptions regarding collective efficacy when examining trust in the police. With that said, several theoretical and practical implica-tions require further discussion.
For starters, our findings advance the procedural justice literature in sev-eral important ways. First, our data reveal that perceptions of neighborhood collective efficacy are associated with variation in evaluations of procedural justice. Individuals situated in environments with anomic conditions (i.e., low collective efficacy) appear less inclined to view police actions as proce-durally fair. The important task for future research is to explore this relation-ship in further detail. Specifically, it is necessary to uncover whether breakdowns in neighborhood collective efficacy result in normlessness per-ceptions that lead to legal cynicism or if such neighborhoods are simply policed differently. Klinger (1997), for instance, posits that police officers will less vigorously respond to crime problems in communities with higher levels of crime. Perhaps lack of police attention to community problems causes people in neighborhoods with lower levels of collective efficacy to provide lower evaluations of procedural justice. Exploring the causal process between perceived collective efficacy and procedural justice is an essential next step for future inquiry.
Second, the present study offered evidence that perceptions of procedural fairness are associated with greater trust in local law enforcement. This find-ing expands on the rather limited, yet growing literature on the antecedents of trust in the police (Jackson et al., 2012; Sargeant et al., 2013; Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Procedural fairness—respect, neutrality, and status rec-ognition—appears to play a central role in individuals’ normative evaluation process regarding the level of trust given to law enforcement authorities. While distinct concepts, our results indicate that the process-based model explains citizen trust in the police much like it explains evaluations of police legitimacy. That is, perceptions of procedural justice are more important than other relevant factors such as distributive justice, contact with the police, prior victimization, perceptions of neighborhood context, and demographic characteristics in explaining normative beliefs about the trustworthiness of
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 631
police officers. Along these lines, thoughtful theorizing and rigorous research are needed with respect to the distinction between trust and legitimacy. Scholars such as Tankebe (2013; see also Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012) and Jackson and colleagues (2012) have begun questioning Tyler’s (1990; see also Tyler & Huo, 2002) conceptualization of legitimacy. Emerging empirical research suggests that trust and legitimacy are distinct (Gau, 2011, 2013; Reisig et al., 2007) but limitations in theoretical conceptualization currently preclude a complete understanding of specific differences between the con-cepts. We encourage continued research in this area to improve our overall understanding of the process-based model of policing and the extent to which trust and legitimacy are separate normative attitudes regarding law enforce-ment. It will also be important to determine whether trust and legitimacy have different effects on compliance, cooperation, or empowerment.
The current study’s second implication is related to Sampson and Bartusch’s (1988) demonstration that macro-level conditions influence atti-tudes toward the police. In short, there is an ecological taxonomy whereby cognitive landscapes emerge. Residents of disadvantaged neighborhoods are more likely to be cynical of the law and the police. Our findings suggest that a similar process may be operating at the individual level. That is, one’s per-ception of his or her surroundings functions as a social-psychological mecha-nism that shapes his or her cognitive orientation toward law enforcement. This is important because it expands on existing macro-level research and specifies a potential mechanism by which neighborhood conditions influence normative evaluations of formal social control agents. In sum, perception of neighborhood context is reality and it manifests itself in evaluations of police trustworthiness.
Relatedly, one of the most important findings from this study was that procedural justice mediated much of the link between perceived collective efficacy and trust. A close reading of Tyler’s (1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002) pro-cess-based model of policing would seem to suggest that procedural justice is the most important antecedent of trust in the police and that it should render other demographic and contextual influences less meaningful (i.e., it should mediate those effects). Accordingly, our findings partially support Tyler’s framework—more than half of the relationship between perceived collective efficacy and trust is explained by perceptions of procedural fairness. Nonetheless, perceived neighborhood collective efficacy remained a statisti-cally significant predictor of level of trust in the police after accounting for variation in procedural justice perceptions. The take away message is that failing to account for evaluations of procedural justice will artificially inflate the observed influence of perceived collective efficacy on trust; however, one’s social-psychological orientation toward neighborhood circumstances is
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

632 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
still important in explaining trust even after accounting for the effect of pro-cedural justice. The present study, therefore, demonstrates the potential util-ity of integrating individual perceptions of neighborhood context into the overall process-based model of policing.
Consistent with previous process-based model research, our findings have important policy implications. Chief among them is that procedural fairness matters far more than anything else we accounted for in shaping levels of trust in the police. Our results suggest that evaluations of procedural justice partially override the influence that negative neighborhood and social envi-ronments may have on citizens’ trust in the police. This finding is important with respect to policing efforts because officers spend much of their time in neighborhoods characterized by concentrated disadvantage and low levels of collective efficacy (Klinger, 1997; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998; Smith, 1986). In such areas, it is imperative that police officers exercise their authority in a procedurally fair manner because residents of these neighborhoods appear to have less favorable attitudes toward the police to begin with. While residents of these neighborhoods are more likely to be distrusting of authorities, our findings suggest that trust can be established between such individuals and the police if officers maintain a high level of respect, politeness, and fairness during their duties. Conversely, if officers fail to be polite or treat citizens in these areas disrespectfully, levels of mistrust could be exacerbated. This has real consequences for police officers because lack of trust breeds less compli-ance with the law and officer directives, less cooperative behavior (e.g., offering information relevant to criminal investigations), and less willingness to empower local police with greater resources.
The results of this study are not without limitations. For one, we were unable to account for compositional effects on trust in the police by measur-ing neighborhood-level characteristics. Unfortunately, we only had survey data from respondents who lived in four neighborhoods, which is insufficient to conduct multilevel analyses (Rabe-Hesketh & Skrondal, 2008).
The results of our study, however, suggest that it is important for future research to explore the simultaneous (i.e., additive) effect of macro-level and perceptual indicators of neighborhood context on evaluations of the police. This will allow for a richer understanding of whether context or perceptions of context matter more in explaining trust in local law enforcement. In addi-tion, our measure of trust in the police captured only “motive-based” trust. Future work could help move this line of inquiry forward by examining the influence of perceived collective efficacy and procedural justice on different conceptual forms of trust (e.g., institutional trust) or scales that capture vari-ous components of trust (see e.g., Tyler & Huo, 2002). Finally, our data were unable to speak about potential differences in the effects of procedural justice and perceived collective efficacy on trust in the police between Whites and
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 633
ethnic minorities. The city from which the current sample was drawn is almost equally represented by Whites and African Americans and, therefore, offers limited ability to examine trust in the police among Hispanics. Future research could move the procedural justice literature forward by examining the appli-cability of the process-based model to Hispanics’ and other ethnic minorities’ evaluations of law enforcement (see, for example, Sargeant et al., 2013).
In conclusion, individuals’ social-psychological orientation toward their neighborhoods is important. This finding suggests future researchers may wish to explore the difference between macro- and individual-level (i.e., per-ceptional) neighborhood indicators on trust and legitimacy evaluations (as well as other attitudes toward the police). For example, simply because one resides in a disadvantaged neighborhood does not necessarily imply that he or she will perceive it as disorganized or dangerous (and vice versa). If true, the question for researchers is to explain why such differences in perception of neighborhood conditions develop in the face of objective indicators. In addition, how do differences in subjective perceptions of neighborhood con-text and objective measures of context explain individuals’ behaviors and evaluations of the legal authorities? That is, do compositional effects matter more or does perception of one’s neighborhood reflect reality? Furthermore, because the present study was concerned only with sources of trust, future researchers might wish to explore its potential consequences. That is, are cooperation, compliance, and empowerment more likely to occur when resi-dents are trusting of the police? And, does trust in law enforcement explain more of these outcomes than subjective or objective neighborhood indica-tors? In the end, our results underscore the predictive accuracy and explana-tory power of Tyler’s process-based theory. We add to the literature by demonstrating its utility in explaining trust in the police—something rela-tively unexplored in detail to date. In addition, we advance the literature by demonstrating that perceived neighborhood collective efficacy is also an important antecedent of trust evaluations. Future research should continue to test the limits of the process-based model of policing, especially in light of the potential practical importance of the framework.
Acknowledgment
The authors thank the anonymous reviewers and editor for their helpful comments and suggestions on an earlier draft of this manuscript.
Authors’ Note
The opinions, findings, and conclusions or recommendations expressed in this publi-cation are those of the authors, and do not necessarily reflect those of the Department of Justice.
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

634 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported in part by Grant 2009-DG-BX-K021, awarded by the Bureau of Justice Assistance, Office of Justice Programs, U.S. Department of Justice.
Notes
1. We thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting that we conduct supplemental analyses that examine the independent effects of “informal social control” and “social cohesion” on trust in the police. All models presented below were re-estimated by separately analyzing the effects of “informal social control” and “social cohesion” on procedural justice (Table 2) and trust in the police (Table 3, Models 2 and 3). The analyses produced identical results in terms of signifi-cance and direction as those presented below. Therefore, we are confident that our results are not influenced by alternative operationalizations of collective effi-cacy (or components of the concept) and the combined scale does not produce misleading results.
2. Additional analyses were also conducted given the characteristics of the neigh-borhoods selected as part of the larger targeted law enforcement initiative. We estimated all models reported below separately for the three homogeneous neighborhoods and the “lower crime neighborhood,” and all substantive results remained unchanged. We also thank an anonymous reviewer for suggesting sup-plemental analyses using dummy variables for the three higher crime neighbor-hoods and the lower crime neighborhood as the reference category (as opposed to the single binary “lower crime neighborhood” indicator). All observed rela-tionships in these supplemental analyses mirrored the results presented below in terms of sign and significance. These robustness checks provide us with con-fidence that our results are not biased as a result of our coding strategy or any idiosyncrasies of the neighborhoods from which the sample was drawn.
3. A problem often encountered when using ordered logistic regression is that the parallel-lines (i.e., proportional-odds) assumption is violated (Williams, 2006). That is, one or more coefficients in the model may differ across values of the dependent variable. The Brant (1990; see also, Long & Freese, 2006) test was used to determine whether each of the regression coefficients estimated in the ordered logistic models were similar across categories of trust in the police. One variable—procedural justice—in Model 3, Table 3 marginally violated the par-allel-lines assumption. In such instances, Williams (2006) advocates estimating a generalized ordered logit equation using Stata’s gologit2 command. Using the partial proportional-odds model, generalized ordered logit allows some of the
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 635
regression coefficients to be the same across all values of the outcome variable and others to differ. The relaxation allows different coefficients to be estimated for procedural justice across categories of trust in the police. Allowing all param-eter estimates to vary across values of the dependent variable would result in a model equivalent to the multinomial logit but such a model lacks parsimony and interpretability (see, for example, Breen, Luijkx, Müller, & Pollak, 2009; Williams, 2006). To check the robustness of our results we re-estimated the trust in police equations using generalized ordered logit models. The findings from these analyses left our substantive conclusions unchanged. Given that the slight violation of the proportional-odds model does not bias the results, and for ease of interpretation, we report findings from the ordered logit models.
References
Acock, A. C. (2005). Working with missing values. Journal of Marriage and Family, 67, 1012-1028.
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the moral life of the Inner City. W.W. Norton.
Austin, D. M., Furr, L. A., & Spine, M. (2002). The effects of neighborhood condi-tions on perceptions of safety. Journal of Criminal Justice, 30, 417-427.
Baruch, Y. (1999). Response rate in academic studies: A comparative analysis. Human Relations, 52, 421-438.
Belsley, D. A., Kuh, E., & Welsch, R. E. (1980). Regression diagnostics. New York, NY: John Wiley.
Bittner, E. (1972). The functions of the police in modern society (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: National Institute of Mental Health.
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy in criminal justice. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 102, 119-170.
Brant, R. (1990). Assessing proportionality in the proportional odds model for ordinal logistic regression. Biometrics, 46, 1171-1178.
Breen, R., Luijkx, R., Müller, W., & Pollak, R. (2009). Nonpersistent inequality in educational attainment: Evidence from eight European countries. American Journal of Sociology, 114, 1475-1521.
Brown, B., & Benedict, W. R. (2002). Perceptions of the police: Past findings, methodological issues, conceptual issues and policy implications. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 25, 543-580.
Brunson, R. K., & Gau, J. M. (2011). Officer race versus macro-level context: A test of competing hypotheses about black citizens’ experiences with and percep-tions of black police officers. Crime & Delinquency. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0011128711398027
Cao, L., Frank, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1996). Race, community context and confidence in the police. American Journal of Police, 15(1), 3-22.
Carlin, J. B., Galati, J. C., & Royston, P. (2008). A new framework for managing and analyzing multiply imputed data in Stata. Stata Journal, 8, 49-67.
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

636 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
Carr, P. J., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We never call the cops and here is why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighbor-hoods. Criminology, 45, 445-480.
Cortina, J. M. (1993). What is coefficient alpha? An examination of theory and appli-cations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 78, 98-104.
Decker, S. H. (1981). Citizen attitudes toward the police: A review of past findings and suggestions for future policy. Journal of Police Science and Administration, 9, 80-87.
Dillman, D. A., Phelps, G., Tortora, R., Swift, K., Kohrell, J., Berck, J., & Messer, B. L. (2009). Response rate and measurement differences in mixed-mode surveys using mail, telephone, interactive voice response (IVR) and the Internet. Social Science Research, 38, 1-18.
Engel, R. S. (2003). Explaining suspects’ resistance and disrespect toward police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31, 475-492.
Engel, R. S. (2005). Citizens’ perceptions of injustice during traffic stops with police. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 42, 445-481.
Fischer, C. S. (1995). The subcultural theory of urbanism: A twentieth-year assess-ment. American Journal of Sociology, 101, 543-577.
Frank, J., Brandl, S. T., Cullen, F. T., & Stichman, A. (1996). Reassessing the impact of race on citizens’ attitudes toward the police: A research note. Justice Quarterly, 13, 321-334.
Fyfe, J. J. (1986). The split-second syndrome and other determinants of police vio-lence. In A. Campbell & J. Gibbs (Eds.), Violent transactions (pp. 207-223). Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.
Gau, J. M. (2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 489-498.
Gau, J. M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 1-19.
Gau, J. M., Corsaro, N., Stewart, E. A., & Brunson, R. K. (2012). Examining macro-level impacts on procedural justice and police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 40, 333-343.
Gau, J. M., & Pratt, T. C. (2008). Broken windows or window dressing? Citizens’ (in)ability to tell the difference between disorder and crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 7, 163-194.
Hawdon, J. (2008). Legitimacy, trust, social capital, and policing styles: A theoretical statement. Police Quarterly, 11, 182-201.
Hindelang, M. J. (1974). Public opinion regarding crime, criminal justice, and related topics. Journal of Research in Crime & Delinquency, 11, 101-116.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal insti-tutions’. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051-1071.
Kirk, D. S., & Matsuda, M. (2011). Legal cynicism, collective efficacy, and the ecol-ogy of arrest. Criminology, 49, 443-472.
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 637
Klinger, D. A. (1997). Negotiating order in patrol work: An ecological theory of police response to deviance. Criminology, 35, 277-306.
Kochel, T. R. (2012). Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy? Justice Quarterly, 29, 384-419.
Kornhauser, R. R. (1978). Social sources of delinquency: An appraisal of analytic models. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Lai, Y., & Zhao, J. S. (2010). The impact of race/ethnicity, neighborhood context, and police/citizen interaction on residents’ attitudes toward the police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38, 685-692.
Lasley, J. R. (1994). The impact of the Rodney King incident on citizen attitudes toward police. Policing & Society, 3, 245-255.
Long, J. S., & Freese, J. (2006). Regression models for categorical dependent vari-ables using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
MacKinnon, D. P., Krull, J. L., & Lockwood, C. M. (2000). Equivalence of media-tion, confounding, and suppression effect. Prevention Science, 1, 173-181.
Mason, C. H., & Perreault, W. D. (1991). Collinearity, power, and interpretation of multiple regression analysis. Journal of Marketing Research, 28, 268-280.
Murphy, K., & Tyler, T. (2008). Procedural justice and compliance behaviour: The mediating role of emotions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 652-668.
Pickett, J. T., Chiricos, T., Golden, K. M., & Gertz, M. (2012). Reconsidering the relationship between perceived neighborhood racial composition and Whites’ perceptions of victimization risk: Do racial stereotypes matter? Criminology, 50, 145-186.
Piquero, N. L., & Bouffard, L. A. (2003). A preliminary and partial test of specific defiance. Journal of Crime & Justice, 26, 1-21.
Rabe-Hesketh, S., & Skrondal, A. (2008). Multilevel and longitudinal modeling using Stata. College Station, TX: Stata Press.
Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. G. (2007). The construct validity and refine-ment of process-based policing measures. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005-1028.
Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood con-text: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17, 607-630.
Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. (2003). Neighborhood context, police behavior and satis-faction with police. Justice Research and Policy, 5, 37-66.
Reisig, M. D., Wolfe, S. E., & Holtfreter, K. (2011). Legal cynicism, legitimacy, and criminal offending: The non-confounding effect of low self-control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38, 1265-1279.
Ren, L., Cao, L., Lovrich, N., & Gaffney, M. (2005). Linking confidence in the police with the performance of the police: Community policing can make a difference. Journal of Criminal Justice, 33, 55-66.
Ross, C. E., & Jang, S. J. (2000). Neighborhood disorder, fear, and mistrust: The buffering role of social ties with neighbors. American Journal of Community Psychology, 28, 401-420.
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

638 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
Ross, C. E., Mirowsky, J., & Pribesh, S. (2001). Powerlessness and the amplifica-tion of threat: Neighborhood disadvantage, disorder, and mistrust. American Sociological Review, 66, 568-591.
Royston, P. (2004). Multiple imputation of missing values. Stata Journal, 4, 227-241.Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) toler-
ance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law & Society Review, 32, 777-804.
Sampson, R. J., & Groves, W. B. (1989). Community structure and crime: Testing social-disorganization theory. American Journal of Sociology, 94, 774-802.
Sampson, R. J., & Raudenbush, S. W. (2004). Seeing disorder: Neighborhood stigma and the social construction of “broken windows.” Social Psychology Quarterly, 67, 319-342.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277, 918-924.
Sarat, A. (1977). Studying American legal culture. Law & Society Review, 11, 427-488.
Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2013). Ethnicity, trust and cooperation with police: Testing the dominance of the process-based model. European Journal of Criminology. Advance online publication. doi:1477370813511386
Schafer, J. A., Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2003). Citizen perceptions of police services: Race, neighborhood context, and community policing. Police Quarterly, 6, 440-468.
Schuck, A. M., Rosenbaum, D. P., & Hawkins, D. F. (2008). The influence of race/ethnicity, social class, and neighborhood context on residents’ attitudes toward the police. Police Quarterly, 11, 496-519.
Shaw, C., & McKay, H. (1942). Juvenile delinquency in urban areas. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Smith, D. A. (1986). The neighborhood context of police behavior. Crime and Justice, 8, 313-341.
Sun, I. Y., Hu, R., Wong, D. F. K., He, X., & Li, J. C. M. (2013). One country, three populations: Trust in police among migrants, villagers, and urbanites in China. Social Science Research, 42, 1737-1749.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37, 513-548.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using multivariate statistics. Boston, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51, 103-135.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
Turanovic, J. J., & Pratt, T. C. (2012). “Can’t stop, won’t stop”: Self-control, risky lifestyles, and repeat victimization. Journal of Quantitative Criminology. Advance online publication. doi:10.1007/s10940-012-9188-4
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Nix et al. 639
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group members want from the law and legal authorities? Behavioral Science & the Law, 19, 215-235.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283-357.
Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, 84-99.
Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in Black and White: Ethnic group differences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8, 322-342.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York, NY: Russell-Sage.
Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of authority. Criminology, 42, 253-281.
Weitzer, R. (1999). Citizens’ perceptions of police misconduct: Race and neighbor-hood context. Justice Quarterly, 16, 819-846.
Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2004). Race and perceptions of police misconduct. Social Problems, 51, 305-325.
Wells, W., Schafer, J. A., Varano, S. P., & Bynum, T. S. (2006). Neighborhood resi-dents’ production of order: The effects of collective efficacy on responses to neighborhood problems. Crime & Delinquency, 52, 523-550.
Williams, R. (2006). Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables. Stata Journal, 6, 58-82.
Wolfe, S. E. (2011). The effect of low self-control on perceived police legitimacy. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 67-74.
Wu, Y., & Sun, I. Y. (2009). Citizen trust in police: The case of China. Police Quarterly, 12, 170-191.
Wu, Y., Sun, I. Y., & Triplett, R. A. (2009). Race, class or neighborhood context: Which matters more in measuring satisfaction with police? Justice Quarterly, 26, 1, 125-156.
Author Biographies
Justin Nix is a PhD student in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. His research interests include policing, theory, and procedural justice.
Scott E. Wolfe is an assistant professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. He received his PhD from Arizona State University in 2012. His research has appeared in a variety of scholarly journals, including British Journal of Criminology, Criminal Justice and Behavior, Journal of Criminal Justice, and Social Science Research.
Jeff Rojek is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. He received his PhD from University of
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

640 Crime & Delinquency 61(4)
Missouri–St. Louis in 2005. His research has appeared in a variety of scholarly jour-nals, including Criminology, Justice Quarterly, and Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency.
Robert J. Kaminski is an associate professor in the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice at the University of South Carolina. He received his PhD from The University at Albany, State University of New York in 2002. His research has appeared in a variety of scholarly journals, including Justice Quarterly, Criminology and Public Policy, and Journal of Criminal Justice.
at UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH CAROLINA on June 17, 2015cad.sagepub.comDownloaded from

Is this the question you were looking for? Place your Order Here

 Get 20% OFF on your next order

Join LindasHelp mail List NOW to unlock 20% OFF instantly 

Essays, Power Point, Discussion, Labs, & Final exams