Development and Validation of Multidimensional Scales of Public Confidence in Criminal Justice

• Published date: 01 December 2024
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/07340168231157241
• Author: Jimin Pyo
• Date: 01 December 2024

Development and Validation of

Multidimensional Scales of

Public Confidence in Criminal

Justice

Jimin Pyo

1

Abstract

Despite growing interest in public confidence in criminal justice, robust confidence measures have

not yet been established. Two studies were conducted to develop multidimensional measures of

public confidence in criminal justice. Study 1 involved two-phased construction of scales in which

a preliminary inventory was generated and then finalized after psychometric evaluations. Six multi-

dimensional scales (62 items) were constructed for measuring efficiency-, finality-, fairness-, lawful-

ness-, accuracy-, and transparency-oriented confidence. Study 2 tested the predictive ability of the

scale scores for cooperation with criminal justice institutions. Results highlight that higher confi-

dence in authorities’accurate fact-finding and fair treatment predicted greater willingness to assist

institutions. Higher confidence in authorities’lawfulness predicted greater compliance with thelaw.

The six scales developed are a reliable and valid tool for measuring confidence in criminal justice and

predicting cooperation with criminal institutions.

Keywords

measurement, scale development, perceptions, confidence, criminal justice

How people perceive criminal justice has become an increasingly important issue for institutions that

rely on public involvement. Public perceptions are especially important because they are associated

with law related attitudes and behaviors such as willingness to cooperate and defer to criminal justice

institutions (Jackson & Bradford, 2010; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). A key aspect of assessing public per-

ceptions of criminal justice may be through confidence, commonly referred to as trust in or reliance

upon authorities working in criminal justice (e.g., Goff et al., 2013; Tyler & Jackson, 2014).

However, measures of confidence in criminal justice remain limited. A problem is the lack of clear

conceptualization of confidence. This in turn has permitted other terms and constructs related to con-

fidence to be used interchangeably, such as legal authoritarianism, loyalty, satisfaction, legitimacy,

and dispositional trust (Indermaur & Roberts, 2009; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). However, confidence is

1

Department of Criminology and Justice Studies, California State University, Northridge, CA, USA

Corresponding Author:

Jimin Pyo, Department of Criminology and Justice Studies, California State University, Northridge, 18111 Nordhoff

St. Northridge, CA, 91330, USA.

Email: jimin.pyo@csun.edu

Article

Criminal Justice Review

2024, Vol. 49(4) 473-494

© 2023 Georgia State University

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/07340168231157241

journals.sagepub.com/home/cjr

broader, concerned with multi-faceted domains of perception about the motives and competence of

human elements in criminal justice (Jackson & Gau, 2016; Jackson et al., 2013). Without specifying

the scope and content areas of measures, much existing empirical research has relied on a single item

asking about general confidence or how well one thinks authorities are doing (e.g., Farrell et al.,

2013; Tuffin et al., 2006). Single-item measures likely cannot capture the complexity of this latent

construct. Even when using multi-item measures of confidence, psychometric properties such as reli-

ability and validity have not been evaluated (e.g., Indermaur & Roberts, 2009; Ren et al., 2005;

Young, 2017).

Most research assessing confidence in criminal justice has also narrowly focused on police or

courts and proposed interpretations are limited to those institutions (e.g., Hamm et al., 2016;

Jackson & Bradford, 2010; Tankebe et al., 2016). However, the concept of confidence can be

extended to other criminal justice institutions, such as prosecution and corrections, especially

given the working group nature of the system (Tyler & Jackson, 2014). There is a need for reliable

and valid scales that comprehensively measure confidence as an integral part of perceptions about

criminal justice that also recognizes the interdependence among individual branches in some

shared mission.

Confidence and trust are often interchangeably used in the literature to indicate perceived positive

valence about criminal justice authorities. The focus of study is not on distinguishing the two terms

but rather on assessing multi-faceted aspects of public perceptions about the motives and competence

of criminal justice authorities. In this connection, this study avoids the term trust as the construct of

confidence measured in this study needs to be distinguished from general or global trustworthiness.

The current research develops and validates multidimensional measures of confidence in criminal

justice that are psychometrically sound and are useful in predicting law-related behaviors. This

research conceptualizes dimensions of confidence based on elements of different ideologies of crim-

inal justice that shape our criminal justice system (Findley, 2008; Packer, 1964). These include (a)

efficiency, (b) finality, (c) fairness, (d) lawfulness, (e) accuracy, and (f) transparency. Two studies

(Study 1: N=342; Study 2: N=433) were conducted to create scales that assessed six types of

confidence in criminal justice. The scales were then used to test the predictive abilities for coopera-

tion with criminal institutions.

Confidence in Criminal Justice

Individuals possess diverse backgrounds, life situations, and experiences which in turn are associated

with different views about criminal justice (Indermaur & Roberts, 2009; Tyler & Trinker, 2017).

Confidence in criminal justice captures an individual’s fundamental perceptions or beliefs about

the motives and competence of authorities with respect to regulating society, resolving crimes,

and managing social order. Confidence is often conflated with other constructs of attitudes toward

legal authorities, especially legitimacy. Yet, legitimacy, while related, is a distinct concept that indi-

cates the perceived right of authorities to prescribe behavior and enforce laws (Tyler & Jackson,

2014). Prior studies have often operationalized public views about legitimacy in part as confidence

(e.g., Goff et al., 2013; Reisig et al., 2007; Reynolds et al., 2018; Tyler & Jackson, 2014) or tacitly

equated legitimacy and confidence (e.g., Gau et al., 2012). Although a growing body of literature

challenges the view that confidence is a key component or measurement of legitimacy (e.g.,

Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012; Jackson & Gau, 2016), a fundamental link between the two constructs

is noted. A consistent view is that subjective legitimacy of authorities is contingent on confidence

(e.g., Hamm et al., 2017; Lee et al., 2019). For example, Hamm et al. (2017) indicates that confidence

predicts a normatively internalized obligation to obey authorities deemed as legitimate or empow-

ered. Their study suggests that perceived legitimacy of authorities may be an attitudinal reaction

that can be predicted by confidence.

474 Criminal Justice Review 49(4)