Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-11T04:11:10.930Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Advancing a Social Identity Model of System Attitudes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 June 2020

Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill Open the ORCID record for Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill [Opens in a new window]
Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill*
Affiliation:
Graduate Center/John Jay College of Criminal Justice, City University of New York, New York, NY10019, USA
*
*Corresponding Author: Kwan-Lamar Blount-Hill, 101 West 12th Street, Suite 16Y, New York, NY10011, USA. E-mail: kblount-hill@jjay.cuny.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The connection between social identity and attitudes toward the criminal justice system (CJS) is an area of interest among criminologists and legitimacy scholars. Previous work has proposed a social identity theory of legitimation, positing that individuals categorize CJS officials as either in-group (i.e. legitimate authority) or out-group (i.e. illegitimate enforcer). Subsequently, how individuals perceive their CJS – including the sincerity of its commitment to the rule of law – is tied to this relationship. Those viewing the government as an out-group oppressor are less likely to accept its legitimacy. This article explores this thesis. From the perspective of system justification theory, how the CJS is categorized should depend on how strongly an individual identifies as belonging to a group disadvantaged by the CJS. System justification theorists hypothesize that system justification (including acceptance of system legitimacy) is more likely when members of disadvantaged groups believe that group interests are less important. Alternative models that explain attitudes toward the system by using social identity theory suggest the opposite: Those who identify more strongly with disadvantaged groups and hold their interests to be more important nonetheless justify oppositional systems and view them legitimately. The present study uses a sample of Black Americans (a disadvantaged group in the American CJS) to determine whether group identification predicts system justification.

Abstracto

Abstracto

La conexión entre la identidad social y las actitudes hacia el sistema de justicia penal (CJS) es un área de interés entre los criminólogos y los estudiosos de la legitimidad. El trabajo anterior ha propuesto una teoría de la legitimidad de la identidad social, postulando que los individuos clasifican a los funcionarios del Sistema de Justicia Criminal (SJC) como dentro del grupo (es decir, autoridad legítima) o fuera del grupo (es decir, ejecutor ilegítimo). Posteriormente, la forma en que las personas perciben su SJC, incluida la sinceridad de su compromiso con el estado de derecho, está vinculada a esta relación. Aquellos que ven al gobierno como un opresor fuera del grupo tienen menos probabilidades de aceptar su legitimidad. Este artículo explora esta tesis. Desde la perspectiva de la teoría de justificación del sistema, la forma en que se clasifica el SJC debe depender de cuán fuertemente se identifique un individuo como perteneciente a un grupo desfavorecido por el SJC. Los teóricos de la justificación del sistema plantean la hipótesis de que la justificación del sistema (incluida la aceptación de la legitimidad del sistema) es más probable cuando los miembros de grupos desfavorecidos creen que los intereses del grupo son menos importantes. Los modelos alternativos que explican las actitudes hacia el sistema mediante el uso de la teoría de la identidad social sugieren lo contrario: aquellos que se identifican más fuertemente con los grupos desfavorecidos y consideran que sus intereses son más importantes, justifican los sistemas de oposición y los ven legítimamente. El presente estudio utiliza una muestra de afroamericanos (un grupo desfavorecido en el SJC estadounidense) para determinar si la identificación del grupo predice la justificación del sistema.

Abstrait

Abstrait

Le lien entre l’identité sociale et les attitudes envers le système de justice pénale (SJP) est un domaine d’intérêt pour les criminologues et les spécialistes de la légitimité. Des travaux antérieurs ont proposé une théorie de l’identité sociale de la légitimation, postulant que les individus classent les fonctionnaires du système de justice pénale (SJP) comme dans le groupe (c.-à-d. Autorité légitime) ou en dehors du groupe (c.-à-d. Exécuteur illégitime). Par la suite, la façon dont les individus perçoivent leur SJP – y compris la sincérité de son attachement à l’état de droit – est liée à cette relation. Ceux qui considèrent le gouvernement comme un oppresseur hors groupe sont moins susceptibles d’accepter sa légitimité. Cet article explore cette thèse. Du point de vue de la théorie de la justification du système, la façon dont le SJP est catégorisé devrait dépendre de la force avec laquelle un individu s’identifie comme appartenant à un groupe défavorisé par le SJP. Les théoriciens de la justification du système émettent l’hypothèse que la justification du système (y compris l’acceptation de la légitimité du système) est plus probable lorsque les membres de groupes défavorisés croient que les intérêts du groupe sont moins importants. Des modèles alternatifs qui expliquent les attitudes envers le système en utilisant la théorie de l’identité sociale suggèrent le contraire: ceux qui s’identifient plus fortement aux groupes défavorisés et tiennent leurs intérêts pour plus importants, justifient néanmoins les systèmes oppositionnels et les considèrent légitimement. La présente étude utilise un échantillon de Afro-américains (un groupe défavorisé dans le SJP américain) pour déterminer si l’identification de groupe prédit la justification du système.

Keywords

social identitylegalization theoryinstitutional legitimacy theoryvulnerable groupsBlack Americansopposing systemsidentidad socialteoría de la legalizaciónteoría de la legitimidad institucionalgrupos vulnerablesamericanos negrossistema opuestoidentité socialethéorie de la légalisationthéorie de la légitimité institutionnellegroupes vulnérablesAméricains noirssystème opposé
Type
Article
Information
International Annals of Criminology , Volume 57 , Issue 1-2 , May 2019 , pp. 114 - 137
Copyright
© 2020 International Society of Criminology

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Allen, Andrea. 2016. “Stop and Question Campus Policing.” Policing: An International Journal 39(3):507–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaji, Mahzarin R., Greenwald, Anthony G., and Rosier, Marshall. 1997. “Implicit Esteem: When Collectives Shape Individuals.” In Preconference on Self, Toronto, Canada.Google Scholar
Bell, Monica C. 2017. “Police Reform and the Dismantling of Legal Estrangement.” The Yale Law Journal 126(7):2054–150.Google Scholar
Blader, Steven L. 2007. “What Determines People’s Fairness Judgments? Identification and Outcomes Influence Procedural Justice Evaluations Under Uncertainty.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 43(6):986–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blount-Hill, K., and St. John, Victor J.. 2017. “‘Manufactured Mismatch’: Cultural Incongruence and Black Experience in the Academy.” Race and Justice 7(2):110–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boduszek, Daniel, Adamson, Gary, Shevlin, Mark, Hyland, Philip, and Bourke, Ashling. 2013. “The Role of Criminal Social Identity in the Relationship Between Criminal Friends and Criminal Thinking Style Within a Sample of Recidivistic Prisoners.” Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment 23(1):14–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bottoms, Anthony E. and Tankebe, Justice. 2012. “Beyond Procedural Justice: A Dialogic Approach to Legitimacy in Criminal Justice.” Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 102(1):119–70.Google Scholar
Bottoms, Anthony E. and Tankebe, Justice. 2017. “Police Legitimacy and the Authority of the State.” Pp. 47–88 in Criminal Law and the Authority of the State, edited by du Bois-Pedain, Antje, Ulväng, Magnus, and Asp, Petter. Oxford: Hart Publishing.Google Scholar
Bradford, Ben. 2014. “Policing and Social Identity: Procedural Justice, Inclusion and Cooperation Between Police and Public.” Policing and Society 22(1):22–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, Ben, Hohl, Katrin, Jackson, Jonathan, and MacQueen, Sarah. 2015. “Obeying the Rules of the Road: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Normative Compliance.” Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 31(2):171–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brewer, Marilynn B. 1991. “The Social Self: On Being the Same and Different at the Same Time.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 17(5):475–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cikara, Mina and Van Bavel, Jay J.. 2014. “The Neuroscience of Intergroup Relations: An Integrative Review.” Perspectives on Psychological Science 9(3):245–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Correll, Joshua, Park, Bernadette, Judd, Charles M., and Wittenbrink, Bernd. 2002. “The Police Officer’s Dilemma: Using Ethnicity to Disambiguate Potentially Threatening Individuals.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83(6):1314–29.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Davis-Lipman, Angelina, Tyler, Tom R., and Andersen, Susan. 2007. “Building Community One Relationship at a Time: Consequences for the Seeking and Acceptance of Help.” Social Justice Research 20(2), 181–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fabrigar, Leandre R., Wegener, Duane T., MacCallum, Robert C., and Strahan, Erin J.. 1999. “Evaluating the Use of Exploratory Factor Analysis in Psychological Research.” Psychological Methods 4(3):272–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzsimmons, Stacey R. 2013. “Multicultural Employees: A Framework for Understanding How They Contribute to Organizations.” Academy of Management Review 38(4):525–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, James L. and Nelson, Michael J.. 2014. “Is the U.S. Supreme Court’s Legitimacy Grounded in Performance Satisfaction and Ideology?” American Journal of Political Science 59(1):162–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goette, Lorenz, Huffman, David, and Meier, Stephan. 2006. “The Impact of Group Membership on Cooperation and Norm Enforcement: Evidence using Random Assignment to Real Social Groups.” American Economic Review 96(2):212–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haider-Markel, Donald P. and Joslyn, Mark R.. 2017. “Bad Apples? Attributions for Police Treatment of African Americans.” Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy 17(1):358–78.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hamm, J. A., Trinkner, Rick, and Carr, J. D.. 2017. “Fair Process, Trust, and Cooperation: Moving Toward an Integrated Framework of Police Legitimacy.” Criminal Justice and Behavior 44(9):1183–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harkin, Diarmaid. 2015. “Police Legitimacy, Ideology and Qualitative Methods: A Critique of Procedural Justice Theory.” Criminology & Criminal Justice 15(5):594–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heuer, Larry and Stroessner, Steven J.. 2011. “The Multi-Value Basis of Procedural Justice.” Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 47:541–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hinds, Lyn and Murphy, Kristina. 2007. “Public Satisfaction with Police: Using Procedural Justice to Improve Police Legitimacy.” The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology 40(1):27–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Michael A. 2001 “A Social Identity Theory of Leadership.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 5(3):184–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Michael A. 2007. “Uncertainty-Identity Theory.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 39:69–126.Google Scholar
Hogg, Michael A., Abrams, Dominic, and Brewer, Marilynn B.. 2017. “Social Identity: The Role of Self in Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 20(5):570–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Michael A., Adelman, Janice R., and Blagg, Robert D.. 2010. “Religion in the Face of Uncertainty: An Uncertainty-Identity Theory Account of Religiousness.” Personality and Social Psychology Review 14(1):72–83.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hogg, Michael A. and Reid, Scott A.. 2006. “Social Identity, Self-Categorization, and the Communication of Group Norms.” Communication Theory 16:7–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hogg, Michael A. and Turner, John C.. 1985. “Interpersonal Attraction, Social Identification and Psychological Group Formation.” European Journal of Social Psychology 15:51–66.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huddy, Leonie. 2003. “Group Identity and Political Cohesion.” Pp. 511–58 in Oxford Handbook of Political Psychology, edited by Sears, D. O., Huddy, L., and Jervis, R.. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Huq, Aziz Z., Jackson, Jonathan, and Trinkner, Rick. 2017. “Legitimating Practices: Revisiting the Predicates of Police Legitimacy.” British Journal of Criminology 57(5):1101–22.Google Scholar
Jackson, Jonathan, Bradford, Ben, Hough, Mike, Myhill, Andy, Quinton, Paul, and Tyler, Tom R.. 2012. “Why Do People Comply with the Law? Legitimacy and the Influence of Legal Institutions.” British Journal of Criminology 52(6):1051–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jackson, Jonathan and Sunshine, Jason. 2007. “Public Confidence in Policing: A Neo-Durkheimian Perspective.” British Journal of Criminology 47(2):214–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jenkins, Richard. 2000. “Categorization: Identity, Social Process and Epistemology.” Current Sociology 48(3):7–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T. 2019. “A Quarter Century of System Justification Theory: Questions, Answers, Criticisms, and Societal Applications.” British Journal of Social Psychology 58(2):263–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T. and Banaji, Mahzarin R.. 1994. “The Role of Stereotyping in System-Justification and the Production of False Consciousness.” British Journal of Social Psychology 33(1):1–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T., Banaji, Mahzarin R., and Nosek, Brian A.. 2004. “A Decade of System Justification Theory: Accumulated Evidence of Conscious and Unconscious Bolstering of the Status Quo.” Political Psychology 25(6):881–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T., Becker, Julia, Osborne, Danny, and Badaan, Vivienne. 2017. “Missing in (Collective) Action: Ideology, System Justification, and the Motivational Antecedents of Two Types of Protest Behavior.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 26(2):99–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T. and Hunyady, Orsolya. 2002. “The Psychology of System Justification and the Palliative Function of Ideology.” European Review of Social Psychology 13:111–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jost, John T., Badaan, Vivienne, Gourdarzi, Shahrzad, Hoffarth, Mark, and Mogami, Mao. 2019. “The Future of System Justification Theory.” British Journal of Social Psychology 58(2):382–392.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kirk, David S. and Matsuda, Mauri. 2011. “Legal Cynicism, Collective Efficacy, and the Ecology of Arrest.” Criminology 49(2):443–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
La Vigne, Nancy, Fontaine, Jocelyn, and Dwivedi, Anamika. 2017. How Do People in High-Crime, Low-Income Communities View the Police? Washington, DC: Urban Institute.Google Scholar
Lerner, Melvin J. 1980. The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lind, Edgar Allan and Tyler, Tom R.. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New York: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lobel, Sharon Alisa. 1991. “Allocation of Investment in Work and Family Roles: Alternative Theories and Implications for Research.” Academy of Management Review 16(3):507–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lord, Frederic M. 1953. “On the Statistical Treatment of Football Numbers.” American Psychologist 8(12):750–1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McLean, Kate C., Lilgendahl, Jennifer P., Fordham, Chelsea, Alpert, Elizabeth, Marsden, Emma, Szymanowski, Kathryn, and McAdams, Dan P.. 2018. “Identity Development in Cultural Context: The Role of Deviating from Master Narratives.” Journal of Personality 86(4):631–51.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nivette, Amy E., Eisner, Manuel, Malti, Tina, and Ribeaud, Denis. 2015. “The Social and Developmental Antecedents of Legal Cynicism.” Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency 52(2):270–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nunnally, Shayla C. and Carter, Niambi M.. 2012. “Moving from Victims to Victors: African American Attitudes on the ‘Culture of Poverty’ and Black Blame.” Journal of African American Studies 16(3):423–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osborne, Danny, Sengupta, Nikhil K., and Sibley, Chris G.. 2019. “System Justification Theory at 25: Evaluating a Paradigm Shift in Psychology and Looking Towards the Future.” British Journal of Social Psychology 58(2):340–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owuamalam, Chuma, Rubin, Mark, and Issmer, Christian. 2016a. “Reactions to Group Devaluation and Social Inequality: A Comparison of Social Identity and System Justification Predictions.” Journal of Cogent Psychology 3:1188442.Google Scholar
Owuamalam, Chuma, Rubin, Mark, and Spears, Russell. 2016b. “The System Justification Conundrum: Re-Examining the Cognitive Dissonance Basis for System Justification.” Frontiers in Psychology 7:01889.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owuamalam, Chuma, Rubin, Mark, and Spears, Russell. 2018a. “A Critical Review of the (Un)conscious Basis for System-Supporting Attitudes of the Disadvantaged.” Social and Personality Psychology Compass 12(11):e12419.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owuamalam, Chuma, Rubin, Mark, and Spears, Russell. 2018b. “Addressing Evidential and Theoretical Inconsistencies in System-Justification Theory with a Social Identity Model of System Attitudes.” Current Directions in Psychological Science 27(2):91–6.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owuamalam, Chuma, Rubin, Mark, and Spears, Russell. 2019. “Revisiting 25 Years of System Motivation Explanation for System Justification From the Perspective of Social Identity Model of System Attitudes.” British Journal of Social Psychology 58(2):362–81.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Owuamalam, Chuma, Rubin, Mark, Spears, Russell, and Weerabangsa, Maas Misha’ari. 2017. “Why Do People From Low-Status Groups Support Class Systems That Disadvantage Them? A Test of Two Mainstream Explanations in Malaysia and Australia.” Journal of Social Issues 73(1):80–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Radburn, Matthew, Scott, Clifford, Bradford, Ben, and Robinson, Mark. 2018. “When is Policing Fair? Groups, Identity, and Judgements of the Procedural Justice of Coercive Crowd Policing.” Policing and Society: An International Journal of Research and Policy 28(6):647–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Savalei, Victoria and Falk, Carl F.. 2014. “Recovering Substantive Factor Loadings in the Presences of Acquiescence Bias: A Comparison of Three Approaches.” Multivariate Behavioral Research 49(5):407–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sidanius, Jim and Pratto, Felicia. 1999. Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy and Oppression. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stähl, Tomas, Van Pooijen, Jan-Willem, and Vermunt, Riël. 2004. “On the Psychology of Procedural Justice: Reactions to Procedures of Ingroup vs. Outgroup Authorities.” European Journal of Social Psychology 34(2):173–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stähl, Tomas, Vermunt, Riël, and Ellemers, Naomi. 2006. “Friend or Foe? Ingroup Identification Moderates Reactions to Outgroup Members’ Allocation Behavior.” European Journal of Social Psychology 36(6):877–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stähl, Tomas, Vermunt, Riël, and Ellemers, Naomi. 2008. “Reactions to Outgroup Authorities’ Decisions: The Role of Expected Bias, Procedural Fairness and Outcome Favorability.” Group Processes & Intergroup Relations 11(3):281–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stryker, Sheldon. 1980. Symbolic Interactionism: A Social Structural Version. Menlo Park, CA: Benjamin/Cummings Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Suchman, Mark C. 1995. “Managing Legitimacy: Strategic and Institutional Approaches.” Academy of Management Review 20(3):571–610.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swaner, Rachel, Ramdath, Cassandra, Martinez, Andrew, Hahn, Josephine, and Walker, Sienna. 2018. What Do Defendants Really Think? New York: Center for Court Innovation.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri. 1972. “Social Categorization” (English manuscript of La catégorisation sociale). Pp. 272–302 in Introduction à la Psychologie Sociale. Vol. 1, edited by Moscovici, S.. Paris: Larousse.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri and Turner, John C.. 1979. “An Integrative Theory of Intergroup Conflict.” Pp. 33–47 in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations, edited by Austin, W. G. and Worchel, S.. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.Google Scholar
Tajfel, Henri and Turner, John C.. 2004. “The Social Identity Theory of Intergroup Behavior.” Pp. 276–93, in Key Readings in Social Psychology, Political Psychology: Key Readings, edited by Jost, J. T. and Sidanius, J.. New York: Psychology Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tankebe, Justice. 2008. “Police Effectiveness and Police Trustworthiness in Ghana: An Empirical Appraisal.” Criminology & Criminal Justice 8(2):185–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tankebe, Justice. 2009. “Public Cooperation with the Police in Ghana: Does Procedural Fairness Matter?” Criminology 47(4):1265–93.Google Scholar
Tankebe, Justice. 2013. “Viewing Things Differently: The Dimensions of Public Perceptions of Police Legitimacy.” Criminology 51(1):103–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tankebe, Justice, Reisig, Michael D., and Wang, Xia. 2016. “A Multidimensional Model of Police Legitimacy: A Cross-Cultural Assessment.” Law and Human Behavior 40(1):11–22.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Turner, John C., Hogg, Micheal A., Oakes, Penelope J., Reicher, Stephan D., and Wetherell, Margaret. 1987. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory. Cambridge: Basil Blackwell.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2004. “Enhancing Police Legitimacy.” The Annals of the American Academy of Political Science and Social Science 593:84–99.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2006. “Restorative Justice and Procedural Justice: Dealing With Rule Breaking.” Journal of Social Issues 62(2):307–326.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. 2007. Psychology and the Design of Legal Institutions. Tilburg: Wolf Legal Publishers.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. and Blader, Steven L.. 2000. Cooperation in Groups: Procedural Justice, Social Identity, and Behavioral Engagement. New York: Psychology Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R., Goff, Phillip Atiba, and MacCoun, Robert J.. 2015. “The Impact of Psychological Science on Policing in the United States: Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Effective Law Enforcement.” Psychological Science in the Public Interest 16(3):75–109.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tyler, Tom R. and Huo, Yuen J.. 2002. Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and the Courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. and Jackson, Jonathan. 2014. “Popular Legitimacy and the Exercise of Legal Authority: Motivating Compliance, Cooperation and Engagement.” Psychology, Public Policy and Law 20:78–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. and Jost, John T.. 2007. “Psychology and the Law: Reconciling Normative and Descriptive Accounts of Social Justice and System Legitimacy.” Pp. 807–25 in Social Psychology: Handbook of Basic Principles, edited by Kruglanski, Arie W. and Higgins, E. Tory. New York: The Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Tyler, Tom R. and Lind, Edgar Allan. 1992. “A Relational Model of Authority in Groups.” Pp. 115–91 in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Vol. 25. San Diego, CA: Academic.Google Scholar
Vainio, Annukka. 2011. “Why are Forest Owners Satisfied with Forest Policy Decisions? Legitimacy, Procedural Justice, and Perceived Uncertainty.” Social Justice Research 24(3):239–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Eijk, Cees and Rose, Jonathan. 2015. “Risky Business: Factor Analysis of Survey Data – Assessing the Probability of Incorrect Dimensionalisation.” PLOS ONE 10(3):e0118900.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Williams, James Herbert. 2018. “Race and Poverty: Growth Areas for the Social Work Research Agenda.” Social Work Research 42(2):67–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wolfe, Scott E., Nix, Justin, Kaminski, Robert, and Rojek, Jeff. 2016. “Is the Effect of Procedural Justice on Police Legitimacy Invariant? Testing the Generality of Procedural Justice and Competing Antecedents of Legitimacy.” Journal of Quantitative Criminology 32:253–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar