Low Self-Control and Perceptions of Procedural Justice Among Urban-Born Youth: The Moderating Role of Officer Intrusiveness

• Author: Dylan B. Jackson,Cashen M. Boccio,Alexander Testa,Michael G. Vaughn
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211049199
• Published date: 01 April 2023
• Date: 01 April 2023
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0306624X211049199

International Journal of

Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology

2023, Vol. 67(5) 471 –498

© The Author(s) 2021

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0306624X211049199

journals.sagepub.com/home/ijo

Article

Low Self-Control and

Perceptions of Procedural

Justice Among Urban-Born

Youth: The Moderating Role

of Officer Intrusiveness

Dylan B. Jackson1, Cashen M. Boccio2,

Alexander Testa2, and Michael G. Vaughn3

Abstract

The current study examines whether the link between low self-control and perceptions

of procedural justice among urban-born youth is contingent on acts of officer

intrusiveness. Data come from the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study and

are restricted to youth reporting lifetime police stops at Year 15 (N = 918). Findings

reveal that the association between low self-control and diminished perceptions of

procedural justice is significantly moderated by officer intrusiveness. To be precise,

low self-control became more relevant in diminished perceptions of procedural

justice as officer intrusiveness decreased. The findings carry implications for police-

citizen interactions, including the training of police officers in developmental science

and how low self-control may shape youth perceptions of police encounters.

Keywords

self-control, police, law enforcement, procedural justice, intrusiveness

Introduction

A wealth of previous research indicates that low self-control is one of the most salient

and robust predictors of criminal involvement (Pratt & Cullen, 2000; Vazsonyi et al.,

1Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA

2The University of Texas of San Antonio, USA

3Saint Louis University, MO, USA

Corresponding Author:

Dylan B. Jackson, Department of Population, Family, & Reproductive Health, School of Public Health,

Johns Hopkin Bloomberg, 615 North Wolfe Street, Baltimore, MD 21205, USA.

Email: DylanBakerJackson@gmail.com

1049199IJOXXX10.1177/0306624X211049199International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative CriminologyJackson et al.

research-article2021

472 International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology 67(5)

2017). Low self-control has been linked to a host of different types of criminal activity

including theft (Baron, 2003), fraud (Holtfreter et al., 2010), and assault (Tittle et al.,

2003). In addition, low self-control has also been connected with engagement in vari-

ous forms of risky and socially undesirable behavior such as risky driving, pathologi-

cal gambling, risky sex, and academic dishonesty (Jones & Quisenberry, 2004;

Paternoster & Brame, 1998). Perhaps not surprisingly, along with the associations

between low self-control, crime, and analogous behaviors, low levels of self-control

have also been linked to contact with the criminal justice system. Previous research

indicates, for instance, that individuals with low levels of self-control are more likely

to (1) be stopped by the police, (2) be stopped multiple times, and (3) be arrested

(Beaver et al., 2009; DeLisi & Berg, 2006; Flexon et al., 2012). Taken together, these

findings suggest that low self-control may be an important precursor to police contact

and arrest.

Similarly, findings from previous research suggest an association between low self-

control and diminished perceptions of procedural justice (Jackson et al., 2020a;

McLean et al., 2019; Reisig et al., 2011; Wolfe, 2011). Procedural justice, in general,

refers to citizens’ perceived fairness and transparency of police contacts (McFarland

et al., 2019). Still, the theoretical conceptualization and measurement of procedural

justice has been subject to debate. For instance, the process-based model drawing from

the work of Tyler (see Tyler, 2004; Tyler & Huo, 2002) contends that people form

perceptions of police legitimacy based on their own judgments of whether police pro-

cedures are fair. To be precise, Tyler (2004) categorizes procedural justice by four

main features: (1) participation—allowing people to participate by explaining their

situations and communicating their views to authorities—(2) neutrality—authorities

are viewed as making unbiased and objective decisions—(3) respectful treatment —

treating people with respect and dignity—and (4) trustful motives—people feel that

procedures are fairer when they trust the motives of police. However, Tankebe (2013)

initiated an alternative approach centering on the argument that public perceptions of

procedural justice, distributive justice, and police effectiveness represent the dominant

framework for police legitimacy (see also Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). Furthermore,

Tankebe (2009, 2013) also notes that an obligation to obey legal authorities may be a

distinct concept from legitimacy as it can be driven by fear rather than shared values

of legal authority. To date, a large body of research has found support for Tyler’s

(2004) model of procedural justice suggesting that when individuals are treated by the

police with dignity, believe they are treated in a fair manner, and perceive that officers

are receptive to their concerns and views, they are more likely to perceive police stops

as being procedurally just (see Jackson et al., 2012; Mohler et al., 2021; Sargeant et al.,

2014; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2005; Tyler & Huo, 2002).

Previous research indicates that lower levels of perceived procedural justice in

police contacts among adolescents are associated with negative psychological/emo-

tional/health outcomes (Geller et al., 2014; McFarland et al., 2019). However, while

the existing research indicates that individuals with low levels of self-control may

perceive police stops as less procedurally just than individuals with higher levels of

self-control, limited research has explored how this relationship may be contingent on