TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECT: DO OFFICER PERCEPTIONS OF   THE WAY THEY VIEW THE PUBLIC? By James Donald Carr            A THESIS  Submitted to Michigan State University in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of  Criminal Justice  Master of Science 2016      ABSTRACT TRICKLE-DOWN EFFECT: DO OFFICER PERCEPTIONS OF   THE WAY THEY VIEW THE PUBLIC? By James Donald Carr   Considerable research has explored the relationship between the police and the  effective with public support. If police departments engage in just, or fair, practices, the public is much more likely to provide that support. Unfortunately, pervasive mistrust of the public is a common element in occupational police culture, and potentially incompatible with service or process-based policing reforms designed to improve public trust in the police. Research in organizational justice studies have regularly demonstrated the benefits of employing just practices in organization-employee relationships --customer interactions. While the organizational justice model has only recently been applied in the policing context, the few studies using organizational justice constructs have noted distinct advantages of officer perceptions of organizational fair treatment. This study will add to this research by comparing officer perceptions of organizational justice with officer views of the public. To provide a more detailed view of officer attitudes toward the general public, measures will be taken and amended from the Mayer, Davis, & Schoorman (1995) model of organizational trust. Implications for policing management will be discussed.  iii  Dedicated to my beautiful, talented, and unbelievably patient wife. Not much longer, love.iv  ACKNOWLEDGMENTS   I am a firm believer that success of any kind is, to some extent, a group effort. Therefore, I would be remiss if I did not acknowledge the support I received along the way.  My thanks to:   Sheila Maxwell, my thesis chair, for patiently explaining quantitative processes I should have already known and making sure I avoided any egregious mistakes.   Ed McGarrell and Steven Chermak, for providing excellent feedback and tips for future studies.   Amanda and Andrew, classmates with enthusiasm and wit who gave me fantastic opportunities to give my mind a rest -   Joseph Hamm, an outstanding mentor who went above and beyond to answer all my questions and concerns.   Melissa Christle, the best graduate secretary any department could ever have.   And, of course, most important of all, my wife Raylea and my daughters Mina and Ally, for being the best trio of girls any man could want.       v  TABLE OF CONTENTS  LIST OF TABLES         vi  LIST OF FIGURES         vii  Chapter 1 Introduction        1  Chapter 2 Organizational Justice Theory      5  2.1 Organizational Justice in the Policing Context    11  Chapter 3 The Police-Community Relationship     14  Chapter 4 Data and Methods        18  4.1 Survey and Sample       19  4.2 Research Model        20  4.3 Scales         23  Chapter 5 Analysis and Results       27  5.1 Regression Analysis       28  Chapter 6 Discussion         36  APPENDIX          41  REFERENCES         43                   vi  LIST OF TABLES    Table 1 Descriptive statistics of study participants (n = 170)    19  Table 2 Survey question text and key constructs     22  Table 3 Internal consistency of scales       26  Table 4 Pearson correlations between scales      28  Table 5 OLS regression results, Officer Trust in the Public    33  Table 6 OLS regression results, Officer General Trust in the Public   34  Table 7 OLS regression results, Officer Community-Specific Trust in the Public 35  Table 8 Bivariate correlations between model variables    42                         vii  LIST OF FIGURES  Figure 1 Conceptual model  dependent, independent, and control variables  21                    1  Chapter 1 Introduction  Encouraging -policing has been an important consideration in the community-policing and problem-oriented policing literatures over the past few decades (Somerville, 2009). A fundamental premise of community and problem-oriented policing is that a neighborhood that endeavors to preserve stability and lawfulness through informal social controls, in conjunction with an accommodating local police organization that assists in identifying and solving problems, is the best way to maintain order in the community (Somerville, 2009). From this perspective, maintaining order in the neighborhood is a shared responsibility. Building a partnership with the public is therefore critical to the success of departmental reforms that are designed to promote better police-public relations and commit the organization to the principles of community-oriented policing. In addition to supporting a -police organizations that cultivate an improved police-citizen relationship (Skogan et al, 1999). By employing fair processes and practices in police-citizen encounters (e.g. every citizen treated equally, respectfully, and objectively; police officers consistently making decisions based on the law and reflecting local values; allowing citizens to express their concerns and grievances; and openly and clearly explaining police decisions), police legitimacy is enhanced in the eyes of the public, leading to greater cooperation with police and compliance with police directives (De Cremer & Tyler, 2007; Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2013; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tankebe, 2008; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). In short, a police organization that enjoys public trust and support provides more effective and efficient policing, while simultaneously  2   Yet not every department or police officer is on board with community-oriented policing (e.g. Rosenberg, Sigler, & Lewis, 2008), or finds significant value in community-policing initiatives (Liederbach, Fritsch, Carter, & Bannister, 2008). Officer resistance to community policing reforms can be high, depending on organizational structure, training, and management style (Wycoff & Skogan, 1994). A frequently cited source of officer resistance to effective implementation of community policing is officer cynicism, a psychological state of enduring skepticism directed at the general public as well as their organization. Put simply, many officers do not trust the average citizen and do not trust their superiors (Reiner, 2010). Officer cynicism is generally considered a persistent and pervasive element of police culture (Manning, 1995; Paoline, 2001; Reuss-Ianni, 1983; Skolnick, 1994). Police cynicism generally develops as a result of several factors, such as the hazardous nature of the job, a strong sense of social solidarity with other officers, and the pressure to produce quantifiable outcomes (such as arrests and citations) as an empirical measure of job performance. In terms of behavior, it manifests as a tendency to develop negative attitudes toward the public such as suspicion and aloofness, while at the same time forming pessimistic views of the expectations and scrutiny of upper management. Citizens may not be viewed as partners in order maintenance but as potential problems that will need to be overcome (Reiner, 2010; Westmarland, 2010); management may be considered overbearing - (Paoline, 2001; Reiner, 2010; Reuss-Ianni, 1983). As such, building a sense of trust and partnership with the general public may be problematic for many police departments and officers steeped in cynicism.  If the overall goal of community-oriented policing is to strengthen the police-community relationship, is it possible for police organizations and management to influence rank-and-file 3  attitudes that do not fit well with community-oriented policing reforms and improve officer views of the public? Several studies within the criminal justice literature have reported findings that suggest this is indeed possible, noting the impact of organizational decision-making, processes, and policy on officer attitudes, rule adherence, decision to arrest, culture, and conduct (Adams, Rohe, & Arcury, 2002; Bradford, Quinton, Myhill, & Porter, 2014; Chappell, MacDonald, & Manz, 2006; Tyler, Callahan, & Frost, 2007; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011; Wycoff & Skogan, 1994). Additionally, research in the fields of procedural and organizational justice has consistently demonstrated that procedures and practices employed by organizations that are perceived as fair and just by employees encourages identification with the organization and positively shapes employee commitment to organizational goals (e.g. Colquitt, 2008). (OCB), behaviors that are optional and rarely compensated but capable of helping to improve organizational performance (Colquitt, Conlon, Wesson, Porter, & Ng, 2001). These findings suggest that it may be possible for police organizations to employ supervisory practices that will positively influence officer views of the public, foster greater commitment to community-oriented policing reforms and initiatives by reinforcing officer identification with the organization, and, by extension, secure increased cooperation and compliance from the public.  their organization and their perceptions of the citizens in the areas they patrol, and attempt to public. Organizational justice theory draws upon subjective assessments of outcomes, processes, and interactions to determine perceptions of fairness. Building 4  introduction of organizational justice measurements in the policing context, this study will attempt to partially replicate Mylocal urban settings.  Officers will be given a survey exploring their views of their organization as well as their views of the citizenry in their patrol areas.  Measures exploring officer perceptions of organizational outcomes, processes, and supervisory interactions will be taken or modified from the Myhill & Bradford study and the organizational justice literature.  To provide a more nuanced view of attitude measure will be supplemented with the Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995; hereafter referred to as MDS) trust construct from the organizational trust literature.  This study represents the first test of the classic MDS definition of trust  a willingness to be vulnerable  While the scope of this study will be necessarily less provide useful insights into the complicated relationship between the police, their organization, and the communities they serve.           5  Chapter 2 Organizational Justice Theory  While the concept of justice has been explored by philosophers and scholars for centuries, widespread interest in and study of justice within organizations is relatively recent (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zepata-Phelan, 2013). In fact, Cohen-Charash and Spector (2001) - in their meta-analysis of empirical and theoretical studies of organizational justice - noted that most of the studies (over 500) in their pre-analysis sample were published after 1990. It was the introduction of social psychological principles to the study of behavior in the workplace in the latter half of the 20th-century that set the stage for some of the initial theoretical work on organizational justice (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zepata-Phelan, 2013). The earliest theories of social justice, or  or social exchange theory, tended to examine principles of justice in basic social interactions, but not necessarily in the context of organizations (Greenberg, 1990). However, as Greenberg (1990) noted, considering these theories  Equity Theory in particular  measured outcomes and inputs in quantifiable terms, it was inevitable they would be applied in organizational settings. long before scholars realized the importance of employee perceptions of justice to the successful operation of organizations (e.g. Moore, 1978; Greenberg, 1982). The research focus , predominantly, has been on cognitive, affective, and behavioral reactions to context-specific perceptions of justice (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001), or a focus on what people believe is just depending on circumstances. In other words, justice is considered a subjective, normative ideal (Colquitt, Greenberg, & Zepata-Phelan, 2013) dependent on context and individual characteristics, not a concrete definition of what justice may actually be. In the organizational context, Cropanzano, Bowen, and Gilliland (2007) 6  note that perceptions of justice are related to social considerations (just treatment conveys a sense of being valued and belonging), ethical considerations (normative views of what ought to happen), and long-term considerations (what happens now predicts what will happen later). Put another way, positive perceptions of justice, or fair treatment, reduces uncertainty (Cugueró-Escofet & Fortin, 2014) and reinforces employee identification with and commitment to the organization (Masterson, 2001).  Initial studies in what Greenberg (1987) later called organizational justice explored employee reactions to perceived fair(1963;1965), for example, proposed that employees compare their outcomes and their perceived input (i.e. work or effort) to the ratio of outcome/input of others (co-workers). A belief that this ratio is out of balance in comparison with co-workers would subsequently be interpreted as There is a great deal of empirical support for Equity Theory (e.g. Garland, 1973) demonstrating a clear link between worker performance and justice outcomes, and most reviewers in the field consider the theory strongly supported by evidence (Greenberg, 1982). However, critics soon pointed out the possibility of confounding variables in interpretation of the data (Pritchard, 1969), and the lack of attention to the processes involved (Lind & Tyler, 1988). Despite this, Equity Theory still retains its popularity, although it has undergone numerous refinements (Cohen & Greenberg, 1982).  Leventhal (1976; 1980) added another dimension to employee perceptions of fairness of outcomes by studying the conditions under which people make use of fairness norms. Leventhal  in the minds of individuals when assessing the fairness of outcomes. When people proactively use allocation rules to determine outcome 7  justice, they may use allocation rules associated with other aspects of normative values such as need or equality. Different circumstances, objectives, and personal motives can trigger the use of a wide variety of allocation rules (Deutsch, 1975). Regardless of the rule used, however, the , and so on.  distributive justice, reactive and proactive behaviors that result from subjective perceptions of the fairness of particular outcomes. A perception of an outcome as unfair (i.e. comparing self to others) and emotions (generate anger, fear, guilt), which will in turn impact behavior (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001). In terms of explanatory power, however, distributive justice appeared limited. It did not identify processes, it focused on individual reactions to outcomes. In essence, it focused on what the outcome decisions were (and individual reactions to them) but not how those outcome decisions were made. As a result of this shortcoming, theorists soon began to shift their attention to the perceived fairness of the processes that ultimately lead to outcomes (e.g. Greenberg & Tyler, 1987; Leventhal, 1980; Lind & Tyler, 1988).  Thibault and Walker (1975) are credited with the original development of procedural justice, or subjective perceptions of process fairness, although their work was in the context of dispute-resolution. By comparing autocratic procedures, where an individual has little or no control or input, with procedures that allow a great deal of input in the process, Thibault and Walker (1975) were able to demonstrate that end results were perceived as fairer when consistently shown that outcomes from processes offering employees some measure of control or 8  input are generally perceived as fairer than outcomes from processes offering little control or input (e.g. Walker, Lind, & Thibault, 1979). Thus researchers have noted an important distinction between conceptualizations of justice: fairness of outcomes and fairness of the means used to achieve those outcomes (Greenberg, 1987).  Tyler (1990) applied procedural justice more broadly and Leventhal (1980) expanded the list of elements of perceived process fairness beyond process control. Tyler and colleagues demonstrated that procedural justice can be used to evaluate behavior in a number of settings, including student-teacher interactions (Tyler & Caine, 1981), voter views of political leaders (Tyler, Rasinkski, & McGraw, 1985), and, most relevant to the current study, police-citizen encounters (Tyler & Folger, 1980; Tyler, 1990). Leventhal (1980) proposed six criteria that people may use to determine if a process is fair: (1) the process is applied consistently across all appropriate parties; (2) the process is unbiased, untainted by personal self-interest; (3) the process is based on accurate information; (4) the process can be corrected, if needed; (5) the process takes into account the needs, values, and opinions of all relevant parties; and (6) the process reflects the ethics and morals of the individual. criteria are still frequently combined with voice (i.e. process control or input) to compose measures of procedural justice in various settings (e.g. Gau, 2014; Dietz, Robinson, Folger, Baron, & Schulz, 2003).  The versatility of procedural justice as a construct was quickly recognized. For example, Greenberg (1986) noted that in management studies, performance appraisals became a popular framework to test the effects of fair treatment and employee behavioral reactions (e.g. Mayer & Davis, 1999). Employee input into the performance appraisal process was demonstrated to be a significant predictor of whether or not an employee evaluates the outcome as fair (Greenberg, 9  1986). Since this evaluation is organization-specific rather than outcome-specific, it becomes critical to employee views of their organization, especially in terms of employee identification with the organization (De Cremer & Tyler, 2005). the organization (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001, p. 281), thus a workerbeha process will inevitably reflect on the organization.  Bies and Moag (1986) introduced a third conceptualization of justice that encompassed the quality of interpersonal treatment experienced during procedures. Interactional justice measures in organizational research typically examine if employees feel they were treated politely, respectfully, and with dignity by management throughout a process or in pursuit of an outcome (e.g. Colquitt, 2001; Colquitt et al, 2001). Interactional justice has been further broken into two more components by Greenberg (1990; 1993) and Colquitt (2001): interpersonal justice (treated with politeness, dignity, and respect) and informational justice (adequately informed about why decisions, expectations, or processes were made). Thus, the organizational justice model evolved from a two-factor model of distributive and procedural justice to a three or four-factor model covering outcomes, processes, interpersonal treatment, and the adequate transmission of information. Subjective assessments of the fairness and quality of each factor were believed to collectively predict context-specific employee behavior (Colquitt, 2001).  However, there is considerable debate concerning the distinctiveness of the various justice constructs (Cohen-Charash & Spector, 2001; Colquitt et al, 2001; Colquitt et al, 2013). Cropanzano and Ambrose (2001) suggested that an event may be seen as a process in one interpretation and an outcome in another, and the high correlations between distributive and procedural justice in some studies (e.g. Sweeney & McFarlin, 1997) appear to support their observation. Most studies, however, have shown a clear distinction between procedural and 10  distributive justice (e.g. Gilliland, 1994). In fact, when measured separately, distributive and procedural justice frequently show different relationships to different things (Masterson, 2001; Moorman, 1991; Roch & Shanock, 2006). In a particularly interesting experiment, Dulebohn and colleagues (2009) found differences in brainwave patterns when participants engaged in subjective assessments of distributive and procedural justice. A majority of research, in other words, appears to confirm that the effects of procedural justice and distributive justice can be independent of each other, despite some overlap. There has been even greater concern regarding the separation of interactional justice from procedural justice. Tyler and Bies (1990), for example, argued that interactional justice is a subset of procedural justice, and a great deal of procedural justice research subsumes l justice construct. structural tests of all three models of organizational justice (distributive-procedural, distributive-procedural-interactional, and distributive-procedural-interpersonal-informational) suggested that collapsi (p. 396), despite high intercorrelations. Subsequent studies have indeed demonstrated that procedural justice and interactional justice may have independent effects or different associations (e.g. Ambrose & Schminke, 2003; Zapata-Phelan, Colquitt, Scott, & Livingston, 2009). While the debate on the distinctiveness of the various justice constructs is by no means settled, the organizational justice ss in predicting behavioral reactions to perceptions of injustice is generally accepted.   11  2.1 Organizational Justice in the Policing Context  The organizational justice model, as a whole, has rarely been applied to research in the policing context. influences on police behavior. Wilson (1978), for example, presented exploratory research that nal structure. Worden (1995) found modest support for organizational influences on excessive use of force by police officers. Several studies have noted the effectiveness of administrative policy as a control on police discretion to use force (e.g. White, 2000), as well as the impact of Alessio, & Stolzenberg, 2014; Wolfe & Piquero, 2011) and police culture (Paoline, 2003; Paoline, Myers, & Worden, 2000). In short, policing researchers have certainly not been lax in examining organizational variables in a variety of policing contexts; the research literature is extensive.  It should be noted that organizational justice constructs have been adapted to the policing context, but not necessarily in a consistent framework and frequently condensed into a single index of justice. For example, has relied heavily on procedural justice constructs that generally include interactional justice measures as well (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 1990, 2004, 2009; Tyler & Huo, 2002). In almost exclusively on procedural/interactional justice measures, or individual interpretations of the fairness of the process and the fairness of treatment during citizen-police encounters (e.g. Tankebe, 2008trust in police officers (Jackson, 2015), felt obligation to obey officer directives (De Cremer & Tyler, 2007), and voluntary cooperation with the local police department in 12  community order maintenance (Reisig, 2007; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). In terms of the organizational justice model and public cooperation with the police, distributive justice (i.e. outcome) measurements are frequently absent from current legitimacy research, although there have been a few comparisons of outcome-based judgments of the police with process-based judgments of the police (e.g. Sunshine & Tyler, 2003), which generally show that procedural justice (interpretations of fairness of processes) has a greater effect on public cooperation with police than distributive justice (interpretations of fairness of outcomes).  The few studies in the policing literature that have used the organizational justice model to examine the effect of officer perceptions of justice on officer behavior or attitudes have noted remarkable findings. Wolfe and Piquero (2011) studied officer perceptions of fair treatment and the relationship these perceptions have with aspects of police culture and misconduct. Results indicated that officers who believed their department operated fairly and justly were less likely to ad Perceptions of just treatment were also associated with lower levels of activity in various forms of misconduct, such as bribery or theft. Tyler, Callahan, and Frost (2007) found that perceptions of organizational justice (predominantly procedural justice) are significantly related to rule adherence among law enforcement and military personnel. Bradford and colleagues (2014) obtained similar results, but in addition to greater rule adherence, they also found that officers who felt fairly treated by their superiors and the organization as a whole had more positive views toward community policing, were more confident and willing to take initiative in a variety of circumstances, and displayed improved identification with the organization. Identification with the organization was an intervening variable for the three types of organizational justice constructs on each of the behaviors studied except compliance with instructions and procedures, 13  which was directly related with perceptions of procedural justice. This finding corresponds with research on social identity in the organizational context (e.g. Blader & Tyler, 2009) that suggests organization.  A new direction in the application of organizational justice in the policing context was provided by Myhill and Bradford (2013). They examined officer perceptions of organizational justice and the impact these perceptions may have on officer attitudes toward the public, as well as their influence on officer views of community policing principles. While their conclusions were limited due to the lack of generalizability of their findings - their sample was drawn from a predominantly rural location and a police organization already heavily committed to service-oriented policing - there was a clear relationship between officer perceptions of fair treatment, fair outcomes, and fair processes, and officer attitudes toward the general public. Specifically, officers who felt their agency was acting in a just manner toward members of the force had more positive attitudes toward serving members of the public and were more receptive of departmental reforms aimed at implementing community-policing policies. The implications of these findings are obvious: police organizations that employ just practices in dealing with frontline officers not only improve officer identification with the organization and officer willingness to commit to departmental reforms and regulations, but also positively influence the police-community relationship, at least in terms of officer attitudes toward the general public. The degree to which this may influence officer-citizen encounters and whether or not this influence may encourage officers to behave in a procedurally just manner with the public is still an open question, however.  14  Chapter 3 The Police-Community Relationship  Depending on circumstances, the relationship between the police and the public they  may be contentious (Skogan, 2005; Sobol, 2010). Friction between the community and local law enforcement is nothing new (Fyfe, 1993), but the ubiquitous presence of cameras and practices and disseminate these images to a wide audience through local news stations and social media. Public perceptions of unfair treatment at the hands of the police convey a sense of exclusion and belittlement (Bradford, 2014) that may reverberate throughout a community, if such actions are perceived as commonplace. Events such as the recent public unrest in Ferguson and Baltimore captures the nas attention and keeps the police-community conversation at the forefront of American social issues. These incidents have their parallels in American history (e.g. the Rodney King riots in Los Angeles in 1992, the Miami riots in 1980, and the Camden riots of 1971) and expose a community-level mistrust and dissatisfaction with local law enforcement that can be endemic in some neighborhoods or cities around the country (Weitzer, Tuch, & Skogan, 2008). This mistrust has a tangible effect on policing and order maintenance. Without public support, law enforcement will have greater difficulty employing efficient and effective policing practices (Skogan et al, 1999).  Ironically, the negative attention garnered by cell phones, social media, and news broadcasts of civil unrest or police misconduct conflates the estimated incidence of abusive policing (Toch, 2012). The majority of police-community interactions are uneventful; only a relative few result in arrest or some form of use of force (e.g. Reiss, 1971). Moreover, surveys consistently reveal that the public by and large supports law enforcement efforts, recognizes 15  police legitimacy, and feels that obeying police officer directives is appropriate and expected (Rosenbaum et al, 2015). Despite a such as the beating of Rodney King or the shooting of Michael Brown, have a more profound and immediate effect on the public than the mundane officers. Slovic (1993), describing this imbalance between trust and distrust, identified reasons  in the public sphere: (1) negative events are much more visible than positive events; (2) negative events carry greater weight than positive events; (3) sources of bad news tend to be seen as more credible than sources of good news; and (4) once distrust has manifested, it feeds itself through a constant process of selective reinforcement. Applying s observations in the context of the police-community relationship, it becomes clear why the handful of instances of police misconduct or corruption, widely viewed through social media and local news outlets, have a much greater impact on public views of the police than the overwhelming majority of encounters that are conducted appropriately and professionally.  However, an organization that loses public trust due to scandals or misconduct can repair Eberl and colleagues (2015) discovered that an organization that begins a tightening of regulations and implementation of oversight rather than paying it lip service or ignoring the problem. In time, due to a predisposition to trust (Downes et al, 2002) trust in the organization gradually returns. Unfortunately, such measures can also negatively influence employee morale and identification with the company due to the difficulty of applying 16  (Eberl et al, 2015). This discontent can filter down and affect employee-customer relationships (Masterson, 2001). (1990; 2004; 2009) exploration of procedural justice in public cooperation with police provides a more promising, albeit slower, approach to repairing public trust in the local law enforcement. Other studies, already noted, have demonstrated the advantages of using organizational justice principles in police organization management (Bradford et al, 2014; Eitle et al, 2014; Myhill & Bradford, 2013), in particular the decrease in officer acceptance of misconduct. Taken together, these studies suggest an approach to policing management that may bypass -paradox of increasing public trust while simultaneously lowering employee satisfaction observed by Eberl and colleagues (2015), primarily by creating an organizational atmosphere that fosters greater levels of organizational commitment and satisfaction, which in turn filters down to interactions with the public.  -organizational studies (e.g. Masterson, 2001) may not translate adequately into the policing context, however, for two reasons: first, there is a significant power differential between the police and the average citizen (Walker, 1993); and second, cynical police views of the public. While senior officers and managers generally support and see the benefits of community policing (Somerville, 2009; Westmarland, 2010), frontline officers have a difficult time viewing the , depending on local crime rates (Sobol, 2010), and tend to be pessimistic about allowing public input into policing practices in their neighborhoods (Adams et al, 2002; Westmarland, 2010), failing to see how this approach could be reconciled with police officer duties. In addition, the occupational and environmental strains of the job, the unique responsibility of wielding discretionary coercive power, and 17  unpredictable supervisory oversight may create considerable cynicism, or anomie, toward both the community and the organization (Manning, 1995; Reuss-Ianni, 1993). Surmounting these obstacles may be difficult, but considering the strength of justice research thus far, appear worthwhile. Procedurally just treatment by officers of the public strengthens the pbond with the police organization, which in turn promotes cooperation, ergo -effect may be possible if the utilization by police organizations of the principles of organizational justice in administrative practice influences officers to act more fairly and positively towards the public.                18  Chapter 4 Data and Methods Similar to tudy will examine how police perceptions of justice in their own organization affect their attitudes toward their organizations and their attitudes toward the public. However, diverging from the Myhill & Bradford study, data was gathered in a city context rather than a rural setting and with police agencies that have varying levels of commitment to community policing principles. Myhill and ted with the Mayer, Davis, and Schoorman (1995) model of trust which includes perceived trustworthiness (as three components: perceived benevolence, ability, and integrity) and propensity to trust1. The third part of the construct is a willingness to be vulnerable. The third component of the MDS construct of trust presents challenges since, in general, the police view vulnerability as unacceptable and a condition that needs to be avoided (Sobol, 2010; Westmarland, 2010). Measures of vulnerability, therefore, run the risk of being answered consistently in the negative. This study measures vulnerability as Many officers may not be supportive of greater community involvement and may consider community involvement a significant risk (Westmarland, 2010), such as, for example, in increasing the considering that one of the goals of community-oriented policing is greater community involvement in controlling neighborhood crime (Somerville, 2009), these views become particularly important to measure.                                                              1 Also called dispositional trust in some studies (e.g. Bianchi & Brockner, 2012). 19  4.1 Survey and Sample  Patrol officers from four departments in mid-size city locations in Lower Michigan were asked to participate in a survey exploring police officer perspectives about their organization and the general public. Since police officers in the patrol division generally have the greatest exposure to police-citizen encounters, they were considered the most appropriate group of officers to sample for this study. In three departments, an invitation to participate in an online survey was distributed to line officers in the uniform patrol division. To maintain officer e-mail then disseminated the e-mail invitation and follow-up reminder to each officer. In the fourth department, a paper survey was distributed to officers at an annual training session. The choice of departments depended largely on the convenience of location, a reasonable number of possible respondents, and the willingness of management to allow and cooperate with the study. The four city areas are somewhat similar in population size and demographics according to the most Uniform Crime Reporting,  Table 1: Descriptive statistics of study participants (n = 170)           Mean   Median   SD   Range   Age  39.7  41  8.28  22 - 60                              Frequency   Percent       Gender               Male    145  87.9         Female   20  12.1    Ethnicity               White    145  88.4         Non-White   19  11.6    Views of Community Policing            Mostly favorable  124  73.8         Mostly unfavorable  22  13.1         Neutral     22   13.1                 20  2010). One hundred ninety officers responded to the invitation to participate in the survey. Of these, 20 officers followed the e-mail link to the opening page of the survey but failed to answer any questions at all and were not included in the final analysis (N = 170). The officer sample2 (Table 1) was mostly white (88.4%) and male (87.9%). According to the U.S. Department of Justice (Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2015), in 2013 whites made up 73% of local police officers nationwide and 87.5% of police officers were male, so this sample is more skewed than the national average in terms of ethnicity. A majority of the respondents had more than 10 years of experience as a police officer (73.6%). The median age of participants was 41, and they ranged in age from 22 to 60. Most reported favorable attitudes toward community policing (73.8%), and an overwhelming majority felt their department was either fully committed to community policing or practiced a mix of community policing and traditional policing techniques (95.2%).  4.2 Research Model  The conceptual model used for this research is delineated in Figure 1. To justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Each of the items comprising these four constructs are outlined in Table 2. Officer perceptions of organizational justice is the main independent variable. Officer organizational commitment to their department, also an independent variable, was measured with two items. A profession-specific factor (attitude toward community policing) and demographics (age, gender, and ethnicity) are assessed as control variables. Officer trust in the public, the main dependent variable, is measured with four                                                            2 Initially, the survey would have asked the officers to identify their department of employment, but the question was discarded due to concerns of protecting officer anonymity. 21  constructs: general views of the public, trustworthiness, propensity to trust, and a willingness to be vulnerable. The trustworthiness construct is represented by three items (Table 2) that measure, respectively, integrity, benevolence, and ability. The key construct items (officer perceptions of organizational justice, officer organizational commitment, and officer trust in the public) were measured on a 7-point Likert scale, ranging from Strongly Disagree to Strongly Agree. The survey was anonymous and confidential, and had an informed consent. The survey took an average of less than 10 minutes to complete (8.6 minutes).   Figure 1. Conceptual model  dependent, independent, and control variables    22   Table 2. Survey question text and key constructs Officer perceptions of organizational justice Distributive justice items  I am fairly paid considering the amount of effort I put in to the job  I am fairly paid considering the amount of education, training, and experience I have  Disciplinary action is a result of pressure on supervisors from command staffa Procedural justice items  Senior managers are open to differing views  In my department, my opinions are valued and taken into account  In my department, good performance is recognized and awarded  In my department, training and development is provided according to need  The force acts fairly regarding career progression Interpersonal justice items  My supervisor treats me with respect  My supervisor refrains from improper comments or remarks  My supervisor takes steps to deal with me in a truthful manner  Police supervisors in this organization show interest in the officers who work under them Informational justice items  My supervisor explains procedures thoroughly  My supervisor provides needed information in a timely manner    Senior management ensures that all personnel are adequately informed on important issues Organizational commitment  I have a strong attachment to the force  I feel a sense of loyalty to my department Officer trust in the public General view items  Some victims of crime are more deserving of a good service than othersa  a  There are certain communities that do little to deserve the respect of the policea Trustworthiness items  The people in the community I patrol approach life with a strong moral code  The people in the community I patrol care about what happens to police officers  The people in the community I patrol  Officer propensity to trust items  Most people can be counted on to do what they say they will do  I think that most people try to be fair  I would say that most of the time, most people try to be helpful Willingness to be vulnerable items I would be comfortable giving a person in the community I patrol a task that is important, even if    I could not monitor his/her actions. If I had my way, I would let the people in the community I patrol have an influence over issues that are important to me. If I had my way, I would let the people in the community I patrol have a say in how the department conducts policing activities in their neighborhood. Notes: aReverse scored items  23  in the public, general views and propensity to trust scales appeared to be targeting a broader view of the public while trustworthiness and the willingness to be vulnerable scales focused on more community-specific officer perspectives. Considering the possibility that there may be a distinction between officer perceptions of people in general and officer perceptions of people in the community they patrol, it was decided that two additional dependent variables will be assessed  general trust in the public (composed of two scales: general views and propensity to trust) and community-specific trust in the public (consisting of two scales: trustworthiness and a willingness to be vulnerable). The following hypotheses are tested in this study: Main Hypothesis: Officer perceptions of organizational justice will be significantly associated with officer trust in the public.  Corollary Hypotheses: It is anticipated that officer perceptions of organizational justice will remain statistically related with public trust when competing explanations are controlled: (1) community-oriented policing (Bradford et al, 2014; Myhill & Bradford, 2013); and (3) demographic variables (age, gender, ethnicity). All of the above hypotheses will be retested with general trust in the public as the dependent variable, and with community-specific trust as the dependent variable.  4.3 Scales (2013) study (specifically, their attitudes to serving the public measure), and is supplemented by 24  the constructs from the MDS trust model (trustworthiness, propensity to trust, and a willingness to be vulnerable). Scales were created by summing all relevant items per scale (see Table 3), and then merging trust and justice scales into the main dependent and independent variables of officer perceptions of organizational justice and officer trust in the public. Officers were given the option to skip any questions they felt uncomfortable answering, but as long as they gave some answers to scale questions (e.g. 1 of the 3 questions regarding propensity to trust, 2 of the 5 questions exploring procedural justice, etc.), their responses were included.3 Previous studies using similar scales have generally returned alpha scores greater than .7, and reliability analysis using SPSS returned comparable results. The general views of the public Table 3).  Three questions represented perceptions of trustworthiness propensity to trust willingness to be vulnerable allowing the public greater involvement in order maintenance, was also measured with three y in  In line with research conducted by Colquitt (2001) and Greenberg (1993), the organizational justice construct (see Table 2) consisted of four components: distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice, and informational justice. Distributive justice was                                                            3 It should be noted that of the sample of 170 officers, only 12 officers failed to completely fill out the survey, giving partial responses to some scales or skipping demographics questions (age, ethnicity, or gender). 25  e of .673, but one question as shown in Table 3. Procedural jusinformational jusse of      26                         Table 3. Internal consistency of scales       Subscale/item           Mean SD  Organizational Justice (Independent Variable)      Distributive Justice       .939      Fairly paid considering effort    4.15 1.78       Fairly paid considering experience and education  4.03 1.80  Procedural Justice        .858      Managers open to differing views    4.24 1.61       Opinions are valued     4.46 1.66       Good performance is recognized    4.91 1.56       Training provided according to need   4.99 1.69       Force acts fairly in career progression   4.22 1.64  Interpersonal Justice       .801      Supervisor treats with respect    6.24 0.81       Supervisor refrains from improper remarks   5.85 1.17       Supervisor is truthful     6.05 0.99       Organization's supervisors interested in officers  5.50 1.33  Informational Justice       .820      Supervisor explains procedures    5.54 1.12       Supervisor provides timely information   5.68 1.13       Supervisor's explanations are reasonable   5.70 1.03       Senior management adequately informs personnel  4.79 1.49  Organizational Commitment (Independent Variable)    .805      Strong attachment to the force    5.82 1.34       Loyal to the department     6.06 1.23  Trust in the Public (Dependent Variable)      General Views of the Public       .804      Some victims more deserving of good service   4.36 1.87       Waste of time trying to help some people   4.29 1.94       Certain communities deserve little police respect  4.57 1.80  Trustworthiness        .742      Community has strong moral code    3.67 1.50       Community cares about police officers   4.09 1.61       Community capable of "policing" itself   2.81 1.58  Propensity to Trust        .901      Most people can be counted on    4.72 1.26       Most people try to be fair     5.05 1.08       Most people try to be helpful    4.99 1.13  Willingness to be Vulnerable       .791      Give a person in community an important task   4.01 1.47       Let community have influence over important issues  3.63 1.60       Let community have a say in policing activities   3.54 1.66   Note: Questions are abbreviated; for full question text, see Table 2   27  Chapter 5 Analysis and Results The constructs were first assessed for bivariate correlations, since high correlations between scales may present multicollinearity problems (Stoltzfus, 2011). Table 4 shows that the r values are not high enough to be a cause for concern with regards to multicollinearity.  All the constructs that comprise organizational justice are positively correlated with each other.  As shown in Table 4, distributive justice, procedural justice, interpersonal justice and informational justice are positively correlated r at .205~.532).  Of these four constructs, interpersonal justice and informational constructs that comprise ir at .216~.546). Trustworthiness and willingness to be vulnerable are the trust constructs most highly correlated with each other. In terms of the correlations between the independent variable constructs and the dependent variable, one can see that perceived organizational justice is correlated with both organizational commitment and trust in the public. As with previous research findings (Myhill & Bradford, 2013), officer perceptions of organizational justice were positively correlated with organizational commitment.       28   5.1 Regression Analysis As outlined in Figure 1 and as stated in the main hypothesis, the primary objective of this research was to investigate the relationship between officer perceptions of organizational justice and officer perceptions of the public. Ordinary Least Squares (OLS) regression analyses were used to test models to assess factors that affect officer trust in the public. Hierarchical regression was used to enable assessment of the separate effects of each of the independent variable constructs, as well as all of their effects together, on the dependent variable. Hierarchical regression is a useful technique to analyze the effects of a variable after controlling for other variables that may be correlated with each other. The coefficient of determination, or R2, is a statistical measure of how well data fit the model. Incremental change in variance is reflected in the change in R2 after each predictor variable is entered into the model. A large change in R2 suggests a sizeable effect on the criterion variable, while a small change may suggest little effect Table 4. Pearson correlations between scales       Organizational Justice   DJ PJ IP IJ      Distributive Justice (DJ)    .499** .205** .236**      Procedural Justice (PJ)     .394** .484**      Interpersonal Justice (IP)      .532**      Informational Justice (IJ)                Trust in the Public   GV TW PT WV      General Views (GV)    .216** .240** .326**      Trustworthiness (TW)     .306** .546**      Propensity to Trust (PT)      .357**      Willing / Vulnerable (WV)               Independent & Dependent Scales   OJ OC TiP      Organizational Justice (OJ)    .517** .419**      Organizational Commitment (OC)     .383**      Trust in the Public (TiP)           **p < .01 (2-tailed)                29  on the criterion variable. The order of placement of variables into the model is reflective of expectations, namely that officer perceptions of organizational justice will have the largest effect on officer trust in the public, followed by organizational commitment, and so on. Model statistics and regression coefficients are shown in Table 54.  Model 1 in Table 5 includes only officer perceptions of organizational justice, and, as shown, the construct is statistically significant (p < .01) with a standardized beta of .419 and an R2 of .176. This indicates that perceptions of organizational justice alone accounts for 18% of the variance in commitment is added, with a standardized beta of .302 and an R2 of .213.  After controlling for organizational justice, the change in R2 when organizational commitment was added was (.038), the public. When officer views of community policing was added to the model (Table 5, Model 3), the R2 change was (.072), which meant that officer views of community policing has nearly twice the effect on officer trust in the public as organizational commitment. Finally, adding the demographic variables to the model appeared to have very little effect on officer trust in the public (R2 change = .013), and none of the demographic variables were statistically significant. Perceptions of organizational justice and views of community policing were the only variables consistently significant across models (p < .01). Organizational commitment was statistically significant in the two-factor model (p < .01), but was not statistically significant in the final model, when other variables are controlled. The final 4-factor model was able to account for 30% of the variance in officer trust in the public (R2 = .298), although one can see throughout the                                                            4 Zero order correlations between model variables can be found in Table 8 in the Appendix (p. 41). 30  four models that perceptions of organizational justice has the largest impact across the explanatory variables considered To explore comprise only general trust (general views and propensity to trust) or only community-specific trust (trustworthiness and a willingness to be vulnerable), these two constructs were also assessed as dependent variables using the OLS regression technique. Table 6 shows an OLS regression with officer general trust in the public as the dependent variable. As shown, Model 1 includes only officer perceptions of organizational justice and it is statistically significant (p < .01). This accounts for 12% of the variance in officer trust in the public. Adding organizational commitment into the model (Table 6, Model 2) increases R2 to .168 (R2 change = .045), but reduces the statistical significance of organizational justice somewhat (p < .05), suggesting a suppression effect. This means that other variables besides perceived organizational justice are likely more important in predicting general trust in the public.  When officer views of community policing were added in Model 3, the R2 increased to .227, although the R2 change was modest (.059). Finally, the addition of officer demographics to the model yields a slight improvement to the model (R2 change = .028), and the added variable of age was statistically significant (p < .05). The 4-factor model for predicting general trust in the public yielded similar results as the 4-factor model for predicting overall officer trust in the public, accounting for 26% of the variance in general trust in the public (R2 = .255). A final regression analysis with community-specific trust in the public as the dependent variable is shown in Table 7. The effects shown here mirror the previous models (Table 5 and Table 6). As shown in Model 1, officer perceptions of organizational justice alone accounts for 12% of the variance in officer community-specific trust in the public, and the model is 31  statistically significant (p < .01). Adding organizational commitment to the model has only a minimal effect (R2 = .141, R2 change = .014), and this variable is not statistically significant, although the model itself remains statistically significant. The addition of officer views of R2 to .185. Officers who had unfavorable and neutral views of community policing had less trust in the community than did police who were favorable towards community policing (the reference category). Officer demographics had virtually no effect on the model (R2 change = .003). The final model for assessing officer community-specific trust in the public accounted for 19% of the variance (R2 = .188). Across all three dependent variables and models, officer perceptions of organizational justice were statistically significant predictors of officer trust in the public and provided the most explanatory power. These results echo research findings in management and organizational psychology literatures on employee perceptions of organizational justice and their effects on the employee-customer relationship (e.g. Masterson, 2001). The perception of fair treatment  While the dynamic is somewhat different in the police-community context (i.e. many officers do not consider the toward a more community-oriented form of policing, something of which the overwhelming majority of officers are aware. For example, over 95% of respondents in this sample felt their department was either fully or partially committed to community policing principles. By treating their officers in a mhave strengthened their commitment to their organization and positively influenced officer views of the public. 32  Officer views of community policing were also statistically significant across all dependent variables, although noticeably less significant for community-specific views of the public. Organizational commitment had no effect on any of the final models predicting officer trust. Ethnicity and gender were not statistically significant in any of the models. Age was a significant predictor in general trust in the public, but it was not significant in the final model of community-specific trust in the public nor in the main dependent variable, officer trust in the public. Demographics as a whole had remarkably little effect on the regression models.     33  Table 5. OLS regression results, Officer Trust in the Public             Variables      Unstandardized Coefficients (Beta)                            Standard Error            Model 1  Model 2  Model 3  Model 4  1. Organizational Justice   .353(.419)**  .254(.302)**  .210(.250)**  .229(.272)**       .062  .071  .070  .072  2. Organizational Commitment    1.070(.227)**  .673(.143)  .655(.139)         .400  .398  .399  3. View of Community Policing           Unfavorable       -8.021(-.244)**  -7.977(-.243)**           2.484  2.492   Neutral        -6.677(-.203)**  -6.751(-.205)**           2.413  2.419   Favorable       Reference Category                 4. Non-White          -.166(-.004)             2.701  5. Female          2.421(.071)             2.462  6. Age           .145(.108)             .099                            Model statistics    F=31.988**  F=20.220**  F=14.649**  F=8.730**       R2 = .176  R2 = .213  R2 = .285  R2 = .298                R2 change = .038   R2 change = .072   R2 change = .013   Note: *p < .05, **p < .01                          34  Table 6. OLS regression results, Officer General Trust in the Public           Variables      Unstandardized Coefficients (Beta)                            Standard Error            Model 1  Model 2  Model 3  Model 4  1. Organizational Justice   .168(.351)**  .107(.223)*  .084(.176)*  .104(.217)*       .037  .042  .041  .042  2. Organizational Commitment    .663(.247)**  .458(.171)  .449(.168)         .234  .235  .234  3. View of Community Policing           Unfavorable       -3.950(-.212)**  -3.964(-.212)**           1.468  1.459   Neutral        -3.668(-.196)*  -3.764(-.202)**           1.426  1.416   Favorable       Reference Category                 4. Non-White          -.476(-.022)             1.582  5. Female          1.383(.072)             1.441  6. Age           .130(.171)*             .058                            Model statistics    F=21.062**  F=15.039**  F=10.794**  F=7.042**       R2 = .123  R2 = .168  R2 = .227  R2 = .255                R2 change = .045   R2 change = .059   R2 change = .028   Note: *p < .05, **p < .01                        35  Table 7. OLS regression results, Officer Community-Specific Trust in the Public         Variables      Unstandardized Coefficients (Beta)                            Standard Error            Model 1  Model 2  Model 3  Model 4  1. Organizational Justice   .185(.356)**  .147(.284)**  .126(.243)**  .125(.242)**       .040  .046  .046  .047  2. Organizational Commitment    .404(.139)  .214(.074)  .205(.071)         .257  .261  .264  3. View of Community Policing           Unfavorable       -4.045(-.200)*  -3.987(-.197)*           1.632  1.649   Neutral        -2.985(-.148)  -2.965(-.147)           1.585  1.601   Favorable       Reference Category                 4. Non-White          .316(.014)             1.787  5. Female          1.044(.050)             1.629  6. Age           .016(.019)             .066                            Model statistics    F=21.825**  F=12.254**  F=8.358**  F=4.764**       R2 = .127  R2 = .141  R2 = .185  R2 = .188                R2 change = .014   R2 change = .044   R2 change = .003   Note: *p < .05, **p < .01                       36  Chapter 6 Discussion  At its most basic, community policing involves an effective working partnership between -police relations and interactions are expected, and the success or failure of departmental reforms geared toward a more community-oriented approach to policing may depend to some extent on the strength of those relations. For community policing to work, the public needs to feel they can trust the officers patrolling their neighborhoods. In other words, trust matters, and since trust is a reciprocal relationship, trust matters in both directions. The success of community policing may be just as dependent on officer trust in the public as public trust in police officers. The task, therefore, becomes one of exploring methods to improve the relationship of trust on both sides of the equation. perceptions of how fairly he/she feels treated by their organization and how they view the public. Research in organizational psychology has consistently revealed that practices employed by organizations that are perceived as fair by employees positively shapes employee commitment to organizational goals (Colquitt, 2008). In terms of policing, one of those organizational goals is better police-community relations, an aim that is well-known to the overwhelming majority of either fully or partially committed to community policing). The findings of the current study suggest that officer perceptions of organizational justice have a significant influence on how police officers view the public, and this holds true across officer ethnicity, gender, and age. In ckle-organization had a more positive, or trusting, view of the public. Officer views of community  37  policing were also an important influence on officer trust in the public. Those officers with an unfavorable or neutral view of community policing had significantly less trust in the public. This would seem to suggest that police departments that encourage their officers to develop a greater commitment to community policing principles and expectations of organizational and supervisory fair treatment will also be positively influencing the police-community relationship, by way of enhancing officer trust in the public. A particularly interesting finding in this research was the distinction between general and community-specific trust in the public. Officer perceptions of organizational justice, while still on, although demographics had little effect throughout the study, age was statistically significant in the general trust in the public model, with older officers having more trust in the general public. This suggests that broad questions about the public mviews of people that may or may not be overlapping with their professional experiences on the beat. In a sense, general questions about people are answered from a subjective personal perspective, while questions about people in the communities an officer patrols are answered from a  perspective. In support of this possibility, officer perceptions of organizational justice and officer views on community policing had even less influence on community-specific trust in the public, and mean officer scores for community-specific trust questions were noticeably lower than for general trust questions. Clearly, at least in this sample, police officers appeared to distinguish between people and people in the communities they patrol. The survey results also provided a more nuanced view of officer attitudes toward, or trust in, the public than is usually found in the policing literature. Based on the results, it would seem that officers, for the most part, feel the public cares about what happens to police officers, and  38  that most people are reliable, helpful, and fair. However, as mentioned above, these attitudes change somewhat when officers are asked to consider people living specifically in the neighborhoods the police officer patrols. In particular, police officers have little faith in the informal social controls to maintain order. This is an especially knotty problem considering the capable of holding up their end of the bargain. Moreover, the police in this sample were less than enthusiastic about allowing the community a say in policing activities in their neighborhoods, which becomes rather problematic considering that having a say in policing activities is very popular among the public (Westmarland, 2010). Finally, the mean for officer perceptions of the integrity lower than most other trust values, suggesting that officers have some doubts about the morality of the people in the neighborhoods they patrol. Considering that normative, or moral, alignment 2012), it may be reasonable to assume that moral alignment is just as important a factor in the  In any event, it should come as some comfort to police management to know that police departments that attempt to create a positive work environment and treat their officers fairly are not only reducing the risks of officer misconduct but also positively influencing the police-community relationship. Policing scholars and police management have devoted a considerable amount of time, money, and energy iin law enforcement agencies and actors. Local and national polling has identified problem areas  39  that contribute to negative perceptions of the police, while academic research has explored specific methods, such as officers employing procedurally just practices when interacting with of police misconduct are generally uncommon in most communities, they do occur, and the events may be sensationalized by local news or social media. In these circumstances, police management must struggle with trying to please a public justifiably upset over an incident of police misconduct while simultaneously attempting to avoid disaffecting the majority of police officers within the organization. Disgruntled police officers are more likely to engage in some police, creating a further burden on police management, and so on. Clearly, addressing the initial   This research has several noteworthy limitations. First, it is unclear if this study was measuring officer trust/mistrust or measuring officer caution. Police officers, by habit and training, approach virtually every encounter with the public with some degree of caution. They mcommunity), and yet still approach an interaction with a community resident in a very cautious, careful manner. Therefore, it is possible that the officers answered some of the survey questions, especially the community-specific questions, with prudence rather than as a reflection of trust or mistrust. This study lacked the means to distinguish between officer trust or mistrust and officer caution. Second, officer attitude may not translate into officer action. In other words, a more positive attitude toward the public does not necessarily mean officers are more likely to be procedurally just in their policing practices when interacting with the public. Future research  40  may want to explore a connection between officer trust in the public and officer policing practices. In addition, it is unclear if attitude leads to trust or behavior leads to trust; there is considerable overlap in interpretation and definition. This research also did not take into account the effect of local crime rates on officer trust, a known environmental influence on officer behavior. Another notable limitation is the fact that this study involved exploring perceptions from four different police departments in four different locations (communities) without considering the context (i.e. environmental factors) that may be influencing police officer responses. Finally, the limits of cross-sectional research  conducted at a specific point in time and unable to determine cause and effect  and the self-selection and geographic location of the   should be noted.              41  APPENDIX 42  APPENDIX  Table 8. Bivariate correlations between model variables              OJ OC Ucp Ncp Eth G A Trust in the Public (TiP)   .419** .383** -.320** -.234** .071 .131 -.037 Organizational Justice (OJ)    .517** -.267** -.152 .107 .142 -.277** Org Commitment (OC)     -.283** -.208** .119 .113 -.142 Unfavorable Views of CP (Ucp)     -.151 -.066 -.091 .087 Neutral Views of CP (Ncp)       -.062 -.036 .068 Ethnicity (Eth)         .138 -.076 Gender (G)          -.220** Age (A)                        General Trust       .351** .363** -.277** -.227** .044 .107 .041             Community-Specific Trust      .356** .286** -.263** -.170* .075 .113 -.097                                                 * p < .05, **p < .01 (2-tailed)          43  REFERENCES 44  REFERENCES  Adams, J. S. (1963). Toward an understanding of inequity. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67: 422  436.  Adams J. S. (1965). Inequity in social exchange. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology: Vol. 2, (267  299). New York: Academic Press.  Adams, R. E., Rohe, W. M., & Arcury, T. A. (2002). Implementing community-oriented policing: Organizational change and street officer attitudes. Crime & Delinquency, 48: 399  430.  Alpert, G., Dunham, R., & Piquero, A. (1998). On the study of neighborhoods and the police. In G. Alpert &A. Piquero (Eds.), Community policing: Contemporary readings, (309  326). Prospect Heights, IL: Waveland.  Ambrose, M. L., & Schminke, M. (2003). Organization structure as a moderator of the relationship between procedural justice, interactional justice, perceived organizational support, and supervisory trust. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88: 295  305.  Bianchi, E. C., & Brockner, J. (2012). In the eyes of the beholder? The role of dispositional trust in judgments of procedural and interactional fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 118: 46  59.  Bies, R. J., & Moag, J. F. (1986). Interactional justice: Communication criteria of fairness. In R. J. Lewicki, B. H. Sheppard, & M. H. Bazerman (Eds.), Research on negotiations in organizations, Vol. 1, (43  55). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press.  Blader, S. L., & Tyler, T. R. (2009). Testing and extending the group engagement model: Linkages between social identity, procedural justice, economic outcomes, and extrarole behavior. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94: 445  464.  Bradford, B. (2014). Policing and social identity: Procedural justice, inclusion, and cooperation between police and public. Policing & Society, 24: 22  43.  justice, group identification, and officer motivation in police organizations. European Journal of Criminology, 11: 110  131.  Chappell, A. T., MacDonald, J. M., & Manz, P. W. (2006). The organizational determinants of police arrest decisions. Crime & Delinquency, 52: 287  306.  Cohen, R. L., & Greenberg, J. (1982). The justice concept in social psychology. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior, (1  41). New York: Academic Press.  45  Cohen-Charash, Y., & Spector, P. E. (2001). The role of justice in organizations: A meta-analysis. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 86: 278  321.  Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 386  400.  Colquitt, J. A. (2008). Two decades of organizational justice: findings, controversies, and future directions, in C. Cooper & J. Barling (Eds.), The Sage Handbook of Organizational Behavior, (73  88). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.  Colquitt, J. A., Conlon, D. E., Wesson, M. J., Porter, C. O. L. H., & Ng, K. Y. (2001). Justice at the millennium: A meta-analytic review of 25 years of organizational justice research. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 425  445.  Colquitt, J. A., Greenberg, J., & Zapata-Phelan, C. P. (2013). What is organizational justice? A historical overview. In J. Greenberg & J. A. Colquitt (Eds.), Handbook of organizational justice, (3  58). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Cropanzano, R., & Ambrose, M. L. (2001). Procedural and distributive justice are more similar than you think: A monistic perspective and a research agenda. In J. Greenberg & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice, (119  151). Lexington, MA: New Lexington Press.  Cropanzano, R., Bowen, D. E., & Gilliland, S. W. (2007). The management of organizational justice. Academy of Management Perspectives, 21: (34  48).  Cugueró-Escofet, N., & Fortin, M. (2014). One justice or two? A model of reconciliation of normative justice theories and empirical research on organizational justice. Journal of Business Ethics, 124: 435  451.  De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Managing group behavior: The interplay between procedural justice, sense of self, and cooperation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37: 151  218.  De Cremer, D., & Tyler, T. R. (2007). The effects of trust in authority and procedural fairness on cooperation. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92: 639  649.  Deutsch, M. (1975). Equity, equality, and need: What determines which value will be used as the basis of distributive justice? Journal of Social Issues, 31: 137  150.  Dietz, J., Robinson, S. L., Folger, R., Baron, R. A., & Schulz, M. (2003). The impact of aggression. The Academy of Management Review, 46: 317  326.   46  Downes, M., Hemmasi, M., Graf, L. A., Kelley, L., & Huff, L. (2002). The propensity to trust: A comparative study of United States and Japanese managers. International Journal of Management, 19: 614  621.  Dulebohn, J. H., Conlon, D. E., Sarinopoulos, I., Davison, R. B., & McNamara, G. (2009). The biological bases of unfairness: Neuroimaging evidence for the distinctiveness of procedural and distributive justice. Organizational behavior and Human Decision Processes, 110: 140  151.  Eberl, P., Geiger, violations: The ambivalence of organizational rule adjustments. Organization Studies, 36: 1205  1235.  , L. (2014). The effect of organizational and environmental factors on police misconduct. Police Quarterly, 17: 103  126.  Fyfe, J. (1993). Good policing. In B. Forst (Ed.), The socioeconomics of crime and justice, (269  290). Armonk, NY: M. E. Sharpe, Inc.  Garland, H. (1973). The effects of piece-rate underpayment and overpayment on job performance: A test of equity theory with a new induction procedure. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 3: 325  334.  Gau, J. M. (2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of procedural justice and police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theoretical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39: 489  498.  Gau, J. M. (2014). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A test of measurement and structure. American Journal of Criminal Justice, 39: 187  205.  Gilliland, S. W. (1994). Effects of procedural and distributive justice on reactions to a selection system. Journal of Applied Psychology, 79: 691  701.  Greenberg, J. (1982). Approaching equity and avoiding inequities in groups and organizations. In J. Greenberg & R. L. Cohen (Eds.), Equity and justice in social behavior, (389  435). New York: Academic Press. Greenberg, J. (1986). Determinants of perceived fairness of performance evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 71: 340  342.  Greenberg, J. (1987). A taxonomy of organizational justice theories. Academy of Management Review, 12: 9  22.  Greenberg, J. (1990). Organizational justice: Yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Journal of Management, 16: 399  432.   47  Greenberg, J. (1993). Stealing in the name of justice: Informational and interpersonal moderators of theft reactions to underpayment inequity.  Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 54: 81  103.  Greenberg, J., & Tyler, T. R. (1987). Why procedural justice in organizations? Social Justice Research, 1: 127  142.  Jackson, J. (2015). On the dual motivational force of legitimate authority. In B. H. Bornstein & A. J. Tomkins (Eds.), Cooperation and compliance with authority: The role of institutional trust, (145  166). New York, NY: Springer.  Leventhal, G. S. (1976). Fairness in social relationships. In J. W. Thibault, J. T. Spence, & R. C. Carson (Eds.), Contemporary topics in social psychology, (211  239). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.  Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What should be done with equity theory? In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg, & R. H. Willis (Eds.), Social exchange: Advances in theory and research, (27  55). New York: Plenum.  Liederbach, J., Fritsch, E. J., Carter, D. L., & Bannister, A. (2008). Exploring the limits of collaboration in community policing: A direct comparison of police and citizen views. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 31: 271  291.  Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.  Loftus, B. (2010). Police occupational culture: Classic themes, altered times. Policing and Society, 20: 1-20.  Manning, P. K. (1995). The police occupational culture in Anglo-American societies. In W. Bailey (ed.), the Encyclopedia of Police Science. New York, NY: Garland.  Masterson, S. S. (2001). A trickle-Journal of Applied Psychology, 86: 594  604.  Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational trust. The Academy of Management Review, 20: 709  734.  Mayer, R. C., & Davis, J. H. (1999). The effect of the performance appraisal system on trust for management: A field quasi-experiment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84: 123  136.  Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: a systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9: 245  274.   48  Moore, B. (1978). Injustice: The social bases of obedience and revolt. White Plains, NY: M. E. Sharpe.  Moorman, R. H. (1991). The relationship between organizational justice and organizational citizenship behaviors: Do fairness perceptions influence employee citizenship? Journal of Applied Psychology, 76: 845-855.  Myhill, A., & Bradford, B. (2013). Overcoming cop culture? Organizational justice and police Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 36: 338  356.  Paoline, E. A., III (2001). . New York, NY: LFB Publishing.  Paoline, E. A., III (2003). Taking stock: Toward a richer understanding of police culture. Journal of Criminal Justice, 31: 199  214.  Paoline, E. A., III, Myers, S. M., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Police culture, individualism, and community policing: Evidence from two police departments. Justice Quarterly, 17: 575  605.  Pritchard, R. A. (1969). Equity theory: A review and a critique. Organizational Behavior and Human Performance, 4: 75  94.  Reiner, R. (2010). The politics of the police, 4th edition. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Reisig, M. D. (2007). Procedural justice and community policing  willingness to participate in crime prevention programs? Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 1: 356  369.  Reiss, A. J. (1971). The police and the public. New Haven, CT: Yale University.  Reuss-Ianni, E. (1993). Two cultures of policing: Street cops and management cops. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.  Roch, S. G., & Shanock, L. R. (2006). Organizational justice in an exchange framework: Clarifying organizational justice distinctions. Journal of Management, 32: 299  322.  Rosenberg, H., Sigler, R. T., & Lewis S. (2008). Police officer attitudes toward community policing: A case study of the Racine Wisconsin Police Department. Police Practice and Research, 9: 291-305, DOI: 10.1080/15614260802354569.  Rosenbaum, D. P., Lawrence, D. S., Hartnett, S. M., McDevitt, J., & Posick, C. (2015). Measuring procedural justice and legitimacy at the local level: the police-community interaction survey. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11: 335  366.   49  Silver, E., & Miller, L. L. (2004). Sources of informal social control in Chicago neighborhoods. Criminology, 42: 551  583.  Skogan, W. G. (2005). Citizen satisfaction with police encounters. Police Quarterly, 8: 298  321.  Skogan, W. G., Hartnett, S. M., DuBois, J., Comey, J. T., Kaiser, M., & Lovig, J. H. (1999). On the beat: Police and community problem solving. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.  Skolnick, J. H. (1994). Justice without trial: Law enforcement in democratic society, 3rd Edition. New York: Wiley.  Slovic, P. (1993). Perceived risk, trust, and democracy. Risk Analysis, 13: 675  682.  Sobol, J. J. (2010). The social ecology of police attitudes. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 33: 253  269.  Somerville, P. (2009). Understanding community policing. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 37: 261  277.  Stoltzfus, J. C. (2011). Logistic regression: A primer. Academic Emergency Medicine, 18: 1099  1104.  Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37: 513  548.  Sweeney, P. D., & McFarlin, D. B. (1997). Process and outcome: Gender differences in the assessment of justice. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 18: 83  98.  Tankebe, J. (2008). Policing, procedural fairness, and public behavior: A review and critique. International Journal of Police Science & Management, 11: 8  19.  Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47: 1265  1293.  Thibault, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.  Toch, H. (2012). Cop watch: Spectators, social media, and police reform. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association.  Tyler, T.R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT: Yale.  Tyler, T. R. (2004). Enhancing police legitimacy. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593: 84  99.   50  Tyler, T. R. (2009). Legitimacy and criminal justice: The benefits of self-regulation. The Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 7: 307  359.  Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen-police encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1: 281  292.  Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The role of distributive and procedural fairness in the endorsement of formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41: 643  655.  Tyler, T. R., Rasinski, K., & McGraw, K. (1985). The influence of perceived injustice on support for political authorities. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 15: 700  725.  Tyler, T. R., & Bies, R. J. (1990). Beyond formal procedures: The interpersonal context of procedural justice. In J. S. Carroll (Ed.), Applied social psychology and organizational settings, (7798). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.  Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell-Sage Foundation.  Tyler, T. R., Callahan, P. E., & Frost, J. (2007). Armed, and dangerous (?): Motivating rule adherence among agents of social control. Law & Society Review, 41: 457  492.  Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? The Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6: 231  275.  Walker, S. (1993). Taming the system: The control of discretion in criminal justice, 1950-1990. Oxford: Oxford University Press.  Walker, L., Lind, E. A., & Thibault, J. (1979). The relation between procedural justice and distributive justice. Virginia Law Review, 65: 1401  1420.  Weitzer, R., Tuch, S. A., & Skogan, W. G. (2008). Police-community relations in a majority-black city. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 45: 398  428.  Westmarland, L. (2010). Dodgy customers? Can the police ever trust the public? Policing, 4: 291  297.  White, M. D. (2000). Assessing the impact of administrative policy on use of deadly force by on- and off-duty police. Evaluation Review, 24: 295  318.  Wilson, J. Q. (1978). Varieties of police behavior: The management of law & order in eight communities. Harvard University Press.  Wolfe, S. E., & Piquero, A. R. (2011). Organizational justice and police misconduct. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38: 332  353.  51   Worden, R. E. (1995). The causes of police brutality: Theory and evidence on police use of force. In W. A. Geller & H. Toch (Eds.), And justice for all: Understanding and controlling police abuse of force, (31  60). Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum.  Wycoff, M. A., & Skogan, W. G. (1994). The effect of a community policing management style Crime and Delinquency, 40: 371-383.  Zepata-Phelan, C. P., Colquitt, J. A., Scott, B. A., & Livingston, B. (2009). Procedural justice, interactional justice, and task performance: The mediating role of intrinsic motivation. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 108: 93  105.