Toward Measuring Objective Procedural Justice: Commentary on Terpstra and van Wijck (2022)

• Author: Rick Trinkner
• DOI: http://doi.org/10.1177/00224278221135806
• Published date: 01 May 2023
• Date: 01 May 2023
• Subject Matter: Comment

Toward Measuring

Objective Procedural

Justice: Commentary

on Terpstra and van

Wijck (2022)

Rick Trinkner

1

Keywords

objective procedural justice, subjective procedural justice, police,

measurement

Introduction

I commend Terpstra and van Wijck (2022) for heeding repeated calls (Nagin

and Telep 2017; Tyler 2017) for more f‌ield work testing procedural justice

theory (PJT). Their general conclusion—that behavior signaling fairer treat-

ment and decision-making is unassociated with the procedural justice judg-

ments of those interacting with police off‌icers—represents a challenging

f‌inding to PJT, at least on the surface. Certainly, they are not alone in

their assessment. Worden and McLean (2017) used a similar methodology

to produce f‌indings that led to nearly an identical conclusion. Indeed,

those earlier f‌indings were central to Nagin and Telep’s (2017: 11) critique

of PJT, in particular the “potential fragility of the assumption that percep-

tions of fair treatment are tightly associated with the actual treatment

received”during police interactions.

1

School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, Phoenix, AZ, USA

Corresponding Author:

Rick Trinkner, School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University, 411

N. Central Ave, Ste. 600, Phoenix, AZ 85004, USA.

Email: Rick.Trinkner@asu.edu

Comment

Journal of Research in Crime and

Delinquency

2023, Vol. 60(3) 378–392

© The Author(s) 2022

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/00224278221135806

journals.sagepub.com/home/jrc