Internal Procedural Justice, Moral Alignment, and External Procedural Justice in Democratic Policing

• Published date: 01 September 2018
• Date: 01 September 2018
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/1098611118772270
• Subject Matter: Articles

Article

Internal Procedural

Justice, Moral

Alignment, and

External Procedural

Justice in

Democratic Policing

Ivan Y. Sun

1

, Yuning Wu

2

,

Maarten Van Craen

3

, and

Kevin Kuen-lung Hsu

4

Abstract

Notwithstanding the popularity of the process-based model of policing among social

scientists, research on factors that encourage police officers to engage in procedur-

ally fair behavior is relatively scarce. Based on the fair policing from the inside out

framework and survey data collected from Taiwan police officers, this study explored

the connection between internal procedural justice and external procedural justice

through the mechanisms of moral alignment with both supervisors and citizens and

perceived citizen trustworthiness. Fair supervision was found to build up moral

alignment between officers and supervisors and between officers and citizens,

which in turn led to stronger commitment to responsiveness and fair treatment of

the public. Internal procedural justice and moral alignment also cultivated officers’

perceptions of public trustworthiness, which similarly strengthened officers’

response and fair treatment toward the public.

1

Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark, DE, USA

2

Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

3

KU Leuven, University of Leuven, Belgium

4

Central Police University, Taoyuan, Taiwan

Corresponding Author:

Ivan Y. Sun, Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, University of Delaware, Newark,

DE 19716, USA.

Email: isun@udel.edu

Police Quarterly

2018, Vol. 21(3) 387–412

!The Author(s) 2018

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/1098611118772270

journals.sagepub.com/home/pqx

Keywords

internal procedural justice, moral alignment, external procedural justice, trust in

citizens, Taiwan police

Introduction

Fair and accountable policing has taken center stage in recent public debates on

the legitimacy of government institutions. In the United States, deadly police–

public incidents in Ferguson, New York City, and Baltimore elucidated how low

perceived legitimacy, resulting chiefly from abusive and biased policing, has

increased public discontent with legal authorities and even antigovernment

activities, causing a detrimental impact on police–community relations.

In Europe, police response to the 2015–2016 terrorist attacks and the refugee

crisis has raised great concerns about the way that police officers treat citizens

and immigrants in some countries. Indeed, people’s perceptions of government

legitimacy signal the extent to which they are willing to comply with and accept

decisions made by government authorities (Beetham, 1991; Tyler, 1990).

Focusing on the antecedents and consequences of legitimacy, studies conducted

in Western democracies have consistently shown that fair and equitable proce-

dures in both treatment and decision-making during police–public encounters

cultivate legitimacy, which in turn enhances legal compliance and cooperation

with the police (e.g., Donner, Maskaly, Fridell, & Jennings, 2015; Hinds &

Murphy, 2007; Jackson et al., 2012; Jackson, Bradford, Stanko, & Hohl,

2013; Kochel, Parks, & Mastrofski, 2013; Reisig & Lloyd, 2009; Sunshine &

Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Huo, 2002; Wolfe, Nix, Kaminski, & Rojek, 2016).

Applying similar procedural justice frameworks to police agencies, a related

vein of inquiry has illustrated that organizational procedural justice was funda-

mentally important in promoting greater job satisfaction, reducing job turnover,

increasing commitment to and compliance with rules and policies, and mitigat-

ing the impact of high profile negative events on officers (Bradford, Quinton,

Myhill, & Porter, 2014; Haas, Van Craen, Skogan, & Fleitas, 2015; Nix &

Wolfe, 2016; Tankebe, 2010; Wolfe & Nix, 2016). Furthermore, researchers

have also started exploring the empirical link between organizational justice,

particularly how officers are treated by their supervisors, and police officers’

support for procedural fairness (Bradford & Quinton, 2014; Tankebe & Mesko,

2015; Trinkner, Tyler, & Goff, 2016; Van Craen & Skogan, 2017; Wu, Sun,

Chang, & Hsu, 2017). Albeit having garnered greater attention in recent studies,

the effects of organizational justice and the mediating mechanisms between fair

supervision internally and street justice externally remain underinvestigated.

The current study seeks to expand the investigation of the roles of procedural

justice and legitimacy by assessing the direct and indirect linkages between

388 Police Quarterly 21(3)