PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF POLICE LEGITIMACY IN SOUTH
KOREA: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICE-PRIVATE SECURITY COOPERATION
By
Seung Yeop Paek

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
Criminal Justice—Doctor of Philosophy
2017

ABSTRACT
PRIVATE SECURITY OFFICERS’ PERCEPTIONS OF POLICE LEGITIMACY IN SOUTH
KOREA: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLICE-PRIVATE SECURITY COOPERATION
By
Seung Yeop Paek
This exploratory research examines the perceptions of private security officers toward
police in South Korea. In an era in which diverse agents of policing comprise the network of
security governance, a lot of policing services are provided in privatized forms. The police are not
the most prominent policing authority anymore, and cooperation between the nodes of the security
network warrants investigation. Therefore, this research assesses security officers’ attitudes about
police and cooperation with them.
By applying a theoretical framework of legitimacy and procedural justice (Tyler, 1990;
Tyler & Huo, 2002), the research question, “What are the factors that shape private security
officers’ perceptions of police legitimacy and its influence on cooperation with police officers?”
is answered. A cross-sectional survey is administered to officers working for two large private
security companies located in the Seoul metropolitan areas and two major casinos in the country.
A total of 436 private security officers have participated and multivariate analyses are employed
to identify the predictors of police legitimacy and intention for and actual engagement in
cooperation with the police. Research and policy implications are suggested and guidelines for
future studies are discussed based on the research limitations.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to everyone that has supported me during my
academic career at Michigan State University. I thank Dr. Mahesh Nalla, the advisor and chair of
my study and dissertation committee, for challenging and encouraging me to reach my potential
in research and teaching. His work ethic and enthusiasm have been an inspiration to me. I also
appreciate the support provided by the committee members, Drs. Steven Chermak, Charles
Corley, and RubĂŠn Martinez. In addition, I would like to acknowledge the help and support
received from the members of the School of Criminal Justice, including faculty, staff, and
colleagues. My time in the program has been very enjoyable because of the people I have been
surrounded by.
Moreover, my special thanks go to my family. I am particularly thankful for my wife, Bo
Min who has stayed by my side throughout this journey. Without her sacrifice and patience, this
accomplishment would not have been possible. Furthermore, I extend sincere appreciation to my
parents and parents-in-law for their support and encouragement. Finally, I am grateful for my
daughter, Olivia Lina, a precious gift and blessing to my family.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................................................vii
LIST OF FIGURES ...............................................................................................................x
CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
1. Emergence of Police & Policing ........................................................................................1
(1) Governance.................................................................................................................1
(2) Policing and nodal network of security governance ..................................................3
(3) Private security profession .........................................................................................5
(4) Benefits of nodal cooperation ....................................................................................6
2. Importance of Research .....................................................................................................8
3. Research Context: South Korea .........................................................................................10
(1) Private security industry in South Korea....................................................................10
(2) Research on police and private security in South Korea ............................................12
4. Overview ............................................................................................................................14
CHAPTER 2
THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK .........................................................................................15
1. Theories of Regulation .......................................................................................................15
2. Legitimacy of Authorities ..................................................................................................16
3. Models of Legitimacy ........................................................................................................18
4. Dimensions of Police Legitimacy ......................................................................................19
(1) Obligation to Obey .....................................................................................................19
(2) Trust ...........................................................................................................................20
(3) Normative Alignment .................................................................................................20
(4) Importance of legitimacy in nodal governance of security ........................................21
5. Theories of Cooperation ....................................................................................................21
(1) Public-Private Partnerships ........................................................................................21
(2) Utility of criminological theories ...............................................................................22
(3) Procedural justice and cooperation with police..........................................................24
6. Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................25
CHAPTER 3
LITERATURE REVIEW ......................................................................................................26
1. Antecedents of Police Legitimacy .....................................................................................26
(1) Instrumental perspectives ...........................................................................................26
(2) Normative perspectives ..............................................................................................27
(3) Socio-demographic characteristics .............................................................................29
2. Outcomes of Police Legitimacy .........................................................................................29
(1) Compliance.................................................................................................................30
(2) Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior ..........................................................................31
iv

(3) Empowerment, Identification, and Extra-Role behavior ...........................................31
3. Other Predictors of Cooperation ........................................................................................34
4. Summary of Existing Literature.........................................................................................35
5. Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................36
CHAPTER 4
METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................................37
1. Research Site: Seoul Metropolitan Areas, South Korea ....................................................37
2. Data Collection ..................................................................................................................38
3. Measurement ......................................................................................................................39
(1) Dependent variables ...................................................................................................40
(2) Independent variables .................................................................................................44
4. Analytic Strategies .............................................................................................................49
5. Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................51
CHAPTER 5
FINDINGS .............................................................................................................................52
1. Descriptive Statistics ..........................................................................................................52
2. Bivariate Analysis ..............................................................................................................56
(1) Independent samples T-Tests and one-way ANOVA ................................................56
(2) Bivariate correlation analysis .....................................................................................73
3. Multivariate Analysis .........................................................................................................77
(1) Predictors of police legitimacy...................................................................................78
(2) Predictors of cooperation with the police ...................................................................84
(3) Further analysis ..........................................................................................................95
4. Chapter Summary ..............................................................................................................96
CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION ...................................................................................102
1. Effects of Socio-Demographic and Attitudinal Variables on Police Legitimacy ..............104
(1) Socio-demographic characteristics and police legitimacy .........................................104
(2) Attitudes toward the police and police legitimacy .....................................................106
2. Effects of Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Legitimacy on Cooperation ..............109
(1) Socio-demographic characteristics and cooperation with the police .........................110
(2) Legitimacy and cooperation .......................................................................................112
3. Contribution of Current Research ......................................................................................113
4. Theoretical Implications ....................................................................................................115
5. Policy Implications ............................................................................................................117
6. Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research ...................................120
7. Conclusion .........................................................................................................................121
APPENDICES .......................................................................................................................123
APPENDIX A: Key Research Findings in Literature.......................................................124
APPENDIX B: Survey Instrument ...................................................................................130
APPENDIX C: Participants’ Career Choices ...................................................................138
APPENDIX D: Additional Multivariate Analysis ............................................................140
v

REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................143

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 4.1: Measurements of Dependent Variables ................................................................43
Table 4.2: Measurements of Independent Variables..............................................................47
Table 5.1: Descriptive Statistics of Participants ....................................................................55
Table 5.2: T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Obligation to Obey .......................................57
Table 5.3: T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Trust..............................................................59
Table 5.4: T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Normative Alignment ...................................62
Table 5.5: T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Compliance ...................................................64
Table 5.6: T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior ............66
Table 5.7: T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Empowerment of the Police .........................68
Table 5.8: T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Identification with Security Profession ........70
Table 5.9: T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Extra-role behavior .......................................72
Table 5.10: Bivariate Correlation Matrix for Individual Variables .......................................75
Table 5.11: Multicollinearity Diagnostics .............................................................................77
Table 5.12a: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type):
Obligation to Obey.................................................................................................................78
Table 5.12b: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Obligation to Obey ...............79
Table 5.13a: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Trust ..........81
Table 5.13b: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Trust ......................................82
Table 5.14a: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type):
Moral Alignment ....................................................................................................................83
Table 5.14b: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Normative Alignment ...........84
Table 5.15a: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Compliance
................................................................................................................................................85
vii

Table 5.15b: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Compliance ...........................86
Table 5.16a: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type):
Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior .....................................................................................88
Table 5.16b: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact):
Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior .....................................................................................89
Table 5.17a: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Empowerment
................................................................................................................................................90
Table 5.17b: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Empowerment .......................91
Table 5.18a: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Identification
with Security Profession ........................................................................................................92
Table 5.18b: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Identification with
Security Profession ................................................................................................................93
Table 5.19a: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type):
Extra-role behavior ................................................................................................................94
Table 5.19b: Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Extra-role behavior ...............94
Table 5.20a: Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Legitimacy (Obligation To Obey) ........98
Table 5.20b: Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Legitimacy (Trust) ...............................98
Table 5.20c: Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Legitimacy (Normative Alignment) .....99
Table 5.21a: Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation (Compliance) ...................99
Table 5.21b: Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation (Likelihood of
Cooperative Behavior) ...........................................................................................................100
Table 5.21c: Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation (Empowerment) ...............100
Table 5.21d: Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation (Identification with
Security Profession) ...............................................................................................................101
Table 5.21e: Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation (Extra-Role Behavior) .....101
Table 5.22: Findings in Research on Police Legitimacy and Cooperation with the Police ...124
Table 5.23a: Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation): Compliance ..............140
viii

Table 5.23b: Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation): Likelihood of
Cooperative Behavior ............................................................................................................140
Table 5.23c: Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation): Empowerment ..........141
Table 5.23d: Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation): Identification with
Security Profession ................................................................................................................141
Table 5.23e: Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation): Extra-Role Behavior
................................................................................................................................................142

ix

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1.1: Police and Private Security Populations in South Korea 2013-2015 ..................13
Figure 5.1a: Private Security was Primary Choice of Career (n/%) ......................................138
Figure 5.1b: Have Tried to Become Police Officer First (n/%) .............................................138
Figure 5.1c: Reason for Becoming Private Security Officer (n/%) .......................................139

x

CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION
1. Emergence of Police & Policing
(1) Governance
Governance is an important concept in the research of the police and policing. There are
myriads of interpretations, but one common element in defining governance is shaping and guiding
people’s behavior. As stated by Foucault (1982), this refers to intentional efforts to guide and direct
the conduct of people. Shaping people’s behavior is aimed at achieving certain objectives, such as
order and security. In today’s world, there are various entities that govern people. Particularly, in
the field of policing, both state and non-state agents, including private security officers1, voluntary
groups, and community associations provide services to ensure and enhance security in society
(Caparini, 2006; Kempa, Carrier, Wood, & Shaering, 1999).
In societies where security is governed by various forms of state and non-state agencies,
also noted as nodal network of governance, state workers exist among other institutional nodes
and share the responsibilities of policing (Wood & Shearing, 2013). Throughout history, the
majority of policing duties have fallen on the shoulders of the police, and the recent shift from
state-centered policing toward the non-state policing has stimulated the interest of scholars who
have explained the increasing allocation of policing responsibilities through responsibilitzation
(O’Malley & Palmer, 1996) and pluralization or multilateralization (Baily & Shearing, 1996).
Among non-state policing agents, the private security industry has grown considerably,
and there are several widely noted economic, political, and social contributors of the development.
To illustrate, examining the shift from an economic perspective, Jones and Newburn (1998) point
out that the fiscal crisis of the 1970s promoted the movement from the Keynesian welfare state to

1

In this research, the terms security officer and security guards are used interchangeably.
1

market-based neoliberalism, which has spurred its growth (Spitzer & Scull, 1977). In addition, the
rising number of mass private properties, such as shopping malls and theme parks, has increased
the demand for security to the extent that the state cannot satisfy alone (Shearing & Stenning,
1983). Furthermore, it has been stated that globalization as well as other emerging phenomenon
related to technology advancement such as cyberspace have expanded the functions of private
security businesses (Kempa et al., 1999).
There are various implications of the change discussed above and the establishment of
nodal governance of security. First, one can see that we no longer view state government as the
sole provider of policing and other security services. Moreover, it should be recognized that each
security node is unique in regard to the mentality of governance. For instance, it is a norm that
state police are more likely to operate with the punishment mentality whereas private security
organizations function with a focus on risk and prevention (Jones & Newburn, 1998). Therefore,
each distinct and independent node can contribute to the overall network of security governance.
Aside from functional and structural implications, the shift toward neoliberalism must be
assessed from a political viewpoint. Since neoliberalism is generally a political process promoted
by conservatives that support the ideologies of capitalism, including free market fundamentalism
and minimal government intervention in business operations, privatization of policing could
increase the gaps between people in their access to the public good. Although the state’s protection
of its citizens from potential harm must be assured to all members of society regardless of their
status, the advancement of neoliberal ideologies may exacerbate the issue of widening wealth
inequality and serving the interests of corporations and the privileged (Martinez, 2016).
Despite the potential negative effects of the shift toward neoliberalism and increasing
privatization of government services, the relevant discourse in policing literature has focused more

2

on structural and functional changes in context of a nodal network of security. Particularly,
possible benefits such as an efficient and effective system of a nodal security network have been
proposed.
(2) Policing and nodal network of security governance
Within the context of governance and social control, “policing” was a term that
encompassed the regulation of government, morals, and economy before the middle of the
eighteenth century (Johnston, 1992). Today’s “policing” is a narrower concept that indicates a
societal function contributing to social order and carried out by diverse entities and individuals
(Button, 2002).
While the specific meaning of the term “policing” has varied over time, what remains
unchanged is that those performing the duty have come from both public and private sectors,
demonstrating that various types of police agents have always existed (Zedner, 2006). Therefore,
one can say that increasing reliance on non-state agents’ policing services in recent decades is not
an unprecedented phenomenon, but a reappearance of a previous policing trend. Specifically, by
reviewing the existing evidence on policing and police, one can find that public and private
policing have co-existed throughout history. It has been noted by scholars that private forms of
policing emerged before public police, such as individual agents receiving a fee or share of
recovered goods for provision of protective, investigative, and enforcement services (Spitzer &
Scull, 1977). Also, in the United Kingdom, the Bow Street Runners are considered to be the first
organized body of police founded by an individual in office and an important influence on the
establishment of the first formal police institution, the Metropolitan Police Force in London in
1829 (George & Kimber, 2014; Pringle, 1955).

3

In addition to the fact that private police came into existence before their public
counterpart, the times in which police functions are performed mainly by the state’s own police in
the form of “criminal justice state” from 1825 to 1875 (Johnston, 2000) support the argument that
political, social, and economic situations can affect the structure and entities that play a key role
in the governance of security.
As discussed, the rise of the private security industry stimulated by the economic crisis of
the Keynesian welfare state (White, 2014) and the expansion of mass private property, including
shopping malls and sports complexes (Shearing & Stenning, 1983) has contributed to
redistributing a substantial amount of policing to the private sector. In the nations that have
experienced a political economic transformation from Keynesian welfare state to neoliberalism,
much of the goods and services are provided by private businesses, and the organizational
structures of public institutions are modified to suit the logic of the market (White, 2014). From a
broader perspective, this new paradigm consists not only of police and private security, but also
other security agents such as the military, which demonstrates multiplication of auspices and
providers of policing. In other words, these policing nodes constitute policing assemblages and
perform the duties related to governing security as a whole (Shearing, 2005).
In the nodal governance of security, an interpenetration of policing strategies has been
witnessed. For instance, innovative policing practices and programs are adopted, including
community policing, restorative justice, and the Business Improvement District (BID). These
involve citizens in maintaining order in public areas and in resolving interpersonal conflicts, as
well as police officers patrolling private properties. Within the nodal network of governance,
governance is viewed as a relationship contained in a shifting network of alliances (Johnston &

4

Shearing, 2003). Thus, it is important to view the nodes in the governance network as partners that
need to work together to achieve common goals.
(3) Private security profession
The profession of private security has not received as much attention as the police have
despite its significance in the security network. In regard to the socio-demographic characteristics
of the individuals employed in the private security field, evidence, despite being limited to the
United States and the United Kingdom, shows that private security officers are poorly educated
and receive low pay (Parfomak, 2004). In addition, low job commitment, high turnover, and lack
of training characterize security officers (Button, 2007; Wakefield, 2003). Moreover, research on
the occupational culture of security officers reveals that there are cultures of solidarity, safety, and
fear due to the risks involved in their work as well as low job satisfaction resulting from longing
to become something else and engage in actual crime fighting (Rigakos, 2002; Button, 2007).
The roles of private security officers have also been subject to much investigation in
Western nations, and it is suggested that there are many overlaps between the functions of the
police and the private security sector, including managing disorder and responding to criminal
events (Nalla & Newman, 1990; Rigakos, 2002). Additionally, research has found that security
officers’ jobs are more inclusive, such as housekeeping, customer care, and information gathering
tasks, demonstrating a wider range of roles played compared to their public counterparts
(Wakefield, 2003). Given the common areas of duty, one can find that the cooperative efforts
between the police and the private security are a reasonable movement in governance of security.
In the following, potential benefits of such interagency cooperation are discussed based on the
available statistics, theories, and case studies.

5

(4) Benefits of nodal cooperation
According to the statistics, there are 867,778 full-time law enforcement officers in the
United States (United States Census Bureau, 2014), indicating that every officer serves about 373
residents. This is a formidable workload that makes it difficult to serve each citizen’s needs
appropriately. In the private sector, the number of security guards outnumbers those of the police
with 1,097,660 individuals employed in various areas of the field (Bureau of Labor Statistics,
2015). Although it should not be generalized to other nations around the world, similar trends are
also found in the United Kingdom (Johnston, 2000), India (Kempa, Carrier, Wood, & Shearing,
1999; Nalla, 1998; Nalla, Ommi, & Murthy, 2013), Hong Kong (Johnston, 2001), and South Africa
(Irish, 1999).
Based on the statistics, it seems reasonable to promote nodal cooperation in today’s
governance network for effective order maintenance and social control. There are multiple
outcomes of cooperation and improved performance is one of them (Smith, Carroll, & Ashford,
1995). For example, a traditional criminological theory and crime prevention techniques, namely
Routine Activity Theory (RAT) (Cohen & Felson, 1979) and Situational Crime Prevention (SCP)
(Clarke, 1992), offer valuable insights into how cooperation among different security nodes can
lead to increased effectiveness in crime prevention and control efforts. The augmentation and
transformation theories of the functional relationships of the police and the private security
(Sklansky, 2006) lend support to the idea of interorganizational cooperation based on RAT and
SCP. Specifically, potential offenders can be deterred through increased numbers of authorities.
The central idea of augmentation is that private security officers provide additional layers of
protection, which can supplement areas that cannot be covered properly by the police.

6

Furthermore, the two sectors can utilize each other’s strategies to provide security more
efficiently (i.e. transformation). For instance, increasing employment of actuarial practices and the
efforts to control those that are identified as risky populations via surveillance (Rigakos, 2002)
demonstrates how the paradigm of policing can be transformed. In addition, various case studies
attest to the usefulness of placing an emphasis on detailed situational characteristics of crime based
on the offense type. Polyner and Webb (1987) have shown that thefts from shopping bags in
markets can be reduced by enhancing natural surveillance (i.e. improved lighting) and deflecting
offenders (i.e. widening the spaces between stalls). Researchers also note that intensive policing
has an issue of redistributing rather than decreasing crime. This case study provides evidence that
the same positive outcomes would not have been achieved if traditional policing tactics were used,
as thefts could be deterred by focusing on specific situations and employing a prevention-oriented
approach.
Providing further insights into the role of private security and assessing the implications of
their functions in social policy, an empirical research study conducted with three mass private
properties in the United Kingdom has suggested that local police forces and the security teams at
all locations collaborate actively in performing their duties. To illustrate, their collaborative efforts
are found in the areas of response to crime in progress, crime investigation, intelligence sharing,
knowledge sharing, and partnership working (Wakefield, 2003). Moreover, it is shown that in the
process of interagency collaboration, organizations find ways to overcome their weaknesses. For
instance, security officers provide useful information to police officers based on the richness of
data obtained from constant monitoring through closed-circuit television (CCTV). Police officers,
in return, supply security officers with emergency back up and expert advice when needed
(Wakefield, 2003).

7

2. Importance of Research
The most fundamental reason to conduct research on the nodal governance of security and
relationships and cooperation among the nodes of policing rests on the intrinsic human need for
security. It is argued that without security, people cannot be satisfied with their lives or strive to
achieve higher needs such as self-esteem and self-actualization (Maslow, 1943). We live in a
society in which there is endless demand for security (Beck, 1992) and because people will
continue to search for alternative methods when the existing supply of security is inadequate
(Becker, 1974), understanding the nodal governance of security and how it can be operated
optimally to provide essential services is an important area of research.
Today’s policing network can be viewed as an organization, and cooperation is key to
achieving success through enhanced performance. As part of the governance network, the
cooperation of police and private security can be a vital factor in fulfilling people’s security
demands. Despite its significance, there is little knowledge about how each organization views the
other and attitudes toward possible cooperative efforts. Furthermore, enhancing public-private
security cooperation is important because it is a way to maximize strengths while minimizing
weaknesses of each node (Johnston & Shearing, 2003). Supporting this argument, it has been
suggested that within an organization, members’ interrelated behaviors must be integrated for
effective performance (Lawrence & Lorsch, 1969).
As mentioned earlier, in discussing the connections between police and private security,
Sklansky (2006) has suggested that there can be three functional relationships - augmentation,
displacement, and transformation - that are likely to exist in different places, at varying times, and
to diverse degrees. To illustrate, augmentation may refer to private security officers providing an
extra layer of protection and increasing the number of guardians (Cohen & Felson, 1979).

8

Furthermore, private security officers may also displace police officers in preventing and
responding to crimes. For instance, the owners in the BIDs can hire private security personnel to
patrol the premises and fulfill security duties. Lastly, the norms of the two sectors can move toward
either direction because of their growing compatibility. The police employing a managerial
approach in monitoring the performance of the officers (e.g. COMPSTAT) is offers a suitable
example.
With the abundance of theoretical support for nodal cooperation, how the members of the
network of security view such idea should be subject to investigation. An existing study of the
police-private security relationship conducted in the United States suggests that both police
officers and private security guards view their relationships with each other positively. However,
it is found that security officers feel that their police officers do not see their cooperation favorably,
although the contrary is true. An explanation for this discrepancy is that police officers do not
exhibit their cooperative nature to private security agencies, thereby causing misunderstanding
(Nalla & Hummer, 1999). Therefore, understanding how they perceive each other more accurately
is a first step toward developing and implementing viable policies for cooperation.
Moreover, in addition to general attitudes toward each other and possibilities of
interorganizational cooperation, examination of the factors that may influence attitudes toward and
actual engagement in this cooperation is warranted. Therefore, the following question is answered
in this research: “What are the factors that shape private security officers’ perceptions of police
legitimacy and its influence on cooperation with police officers?” By conducting the current
research, attempts are made at addressing the gap in the literature and contributing to extending
the research contexts which have been mostly limited to Western nations. In the following, the
specific setting of research and its private security industry are discussed.

9

3. Research Context: South Korea
(1) Private security industry in South Korea
South Korea is the setting of current research. Public police and private security are the
two prominent nodes that comprise the network of security governance in the country and
considering its unique political, economic, and social backgrounds, it is an interesting context for
a study of the nodal governance and the relationships between the two policing agents. Particularly,
the periods of Japanese annexation (1910-1945) and the military regimes (1963-1988) have
impacted the perceptions of the legitimacy of legal authorities, including the police and its staff.
During these eras, the police operated and provided services in order to further the interests of the
government, rather than those of the citizens. Consequently, the police had been largely viewed as
undemocratic and authoritarian until the recent decades (Moon, 2004).
The history of the South Korean police may have important implications in a discussion of
the relationship between the police and private security businesses. While private security officers
perform various policing duties at work, they do not have superior status compared to ordinary
people (Nalla & Newman, 1990). The nature of private security work is not much different in
South Korea (Nalla & Hwang, 2006). Therefore, it is possible that the history of the police could
affect their views similarly as it does other citizens. Moreover, aside from historical factors, the
relationship between the public police and the private security is structurally distinct in South
Korea from that of the Western nations (i.e. the United State, the United Kingdom, Canada, etc.).
To illustrate, the police are the supervising entity that direct and monitor the private security
industry. Thus, police officers can be viewed as private security guards’ authorities, which renders
the theories of the citizens’ perceptions and behavior toward authorities applicable.

10

Another important aspect to consider is the country’s rapid economic developments and
subsequent hosting of worldwide events (e.g. 1988 Seoul Olympic Games and 2002 World Cup,
etc.). These along with the enactment of the Security Service Business Act in 1976 have
contributed to the rising demand for security services, promoting the growth of the private security
industry (Lee, 2004; Nalla & Hwang, 2004). Other factors also suggested to have stimulated the
growth of the private security sector include increasing crime rates (Joo, 2003), decentralization
of the police (Lee, 2004), and development and rising use of security technology such as CCTV
and burglar alarms (Button, Park, & Lee, 2006).
The private security industry provides various services such as facility protection, cash-intransit, personal protection, alarm and response system, and special security. Given the diversity
of the tasks performed, the work of security guards is found in myriads of locations, including
schools, post offices, fire stations, hospitals, homes, shops, banks, etc. (Button et al., 2006). The
private security industry (excludes in-house security officers) in South Korea operates according
to the Security Industry Act (SIA), and the contract security officers recruited for this research are
General Security Officers (GSOs) that are more common in the country and do not have special
legal privileges as opposed to the Special Security Officers (SSOs) that are allowed to carry
firearms at work. As per SIA, in order to work as a GSO, a person must be at least eighteen years
of age with a clean criminal record for the past five years. Additionally, there are twenty-eight
hours of required training, and they can use non-lethal weapons (e.g. baton, pepper spray, etc.)
while on duty (Button & Park, 2009).
Although there has been significant growth of the industry and efforts have been made to
regulate it properly, inadequate training, ethical standards of officers, and relationships between
police and security officers are among the areas that require more attention and improvement to

11

promote additional advancement of the industry (Button et al, 2006). Specifically, the working
relationship and the cooperation between the police and private security is an interesting issue to
explore (Nalla & Hwang, 2006) as it is directly relevant to today’s nodal network of governance
and an essential component of effective crime prevention policies (Y. Lee, 1995).
(2) Research on police and private security in South Korea
Despite their importance in the governance of security, studies on private security guards
have not been conducted as extensively as those on police officers. Existing evidence suggests that
private security guards in South Korea work under adverse conditions, including low pay, long
hours, and alienation (Button & Park, 2009). Security officers are also perceived to be
insufficiently rewarded, although their job typically includes strenuous and dangerous tasks. In
addition, security officers are not thought to be professional, trained well, or involved in
apprehending offenders. Nonetheless, they are regarded as polite and well-accepted by people
(Nalla & Hwang, 2004).
Studies focusing on the cooperation between public and private policing are also rare,
especially in a non-Western context, and the findings of the few existing studies vary. There is
evidence suggesting that private security and police officers do not communicate their views very
well and tend to misunderstand each other (Nalla & Hummer, 1999). It is also suggested that both
police and private security officers view their relationship and the strategies for improving it
positively and optimistically (Nalla & Hwang, 2006), while an opposing finding suggests that there
is considerable degree of mistrust within the police in regard to the security officers’ integrity and
commitment, hindering the development of an effective cooperative relationship (Button et al.,
2006). Although these studies make a valuable contribution to our understanding of the

12

relationship between the two organizations, identifying significant predictors of interagency
cooperation warrants further exploration.
One purpose of investigating interagency cooperation is to suggest ways to provide more
quality security services to citizens and maintain order in an efficient and effective manner.
According to national statistics, there are a total of 113,077 police officers in South Korea, which
makes each officer responsible for serving 456 citizens. Also, 19,105,000 calls were received by
the police and a total of 1,861,657 major crimes were committed in 2015 (Korean National Police
Agency, 2015).

Figure 1.1 Police and Private Security Populations in South Korea 2013-2015
180,000
160,000

151,741

150,543

105,357

109,364

153,767

140,000
120,000
100,000

113,077

80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
0
2013

2014
Police

Private Security

13

2015

The statistics show that as in the case of the United States, the workloads need to be relieved
for the public sector. Cooperation and support from the private sector is a viable option. There are
153,767 private security officers2 are employed in 4,449 businesses and utilizing this workforce
can have a significant impact on the work situations of the police officers and the quality of the
security services that the citizens receive (Korean National Police Agency, 2015).
4. Overview
In this exploratory3 research, the author will examine the factors that promote cooperation
between the nodes in today’s security governance network. Particularly, the crucial elements of
cooperation between the police and private security in the cultural context of South Korea are
assessed. Because of a lack of existing research in addition to the unique hierarchical nature of the
two organizations, the findings are expected to make a meaningful contribution to literature and
future directions for policy
In order to conduct a study that is theoretically grounded and empirically sound, relevant
theories and existing studies are reviewed in Chapter Two. The literature review will follow
(Chapter Three) to identify the areas that require additional investigation and develop the main
research question. Subsequently, data collection and analytic strategies are presented in Chapter
Four. Furthermore, findings of the data analyses (Chapter Five) and discussion of implications,
limitations, and directions for future research are presented, followed by the concluding remarks
(Chapter Six).

2

The figure does not include in-house security officers.
The author frames this research as an exploratory study because of the few existing works on
this subject and the nature of the sample (i.e. convenience) recruited and analyzed.
3

14

CHAPTER 2. THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
1. Theories of Regulation
Public and private policing institutions are developed to regulate people’s behavior and
maintain social order. Scholars have investigated how these agents of governance could perform
their jobs most effectively. Particularly, in order to shape people’s behavior in line with the
prescribed rules and legislation, different theses have been proposed and some of the examples
come from the traditional criminological theories, namely rational choice and deterrence. These
theories assume that humans are rational actors that consider the benefits and the costs of their
actions when exercising free will (Kubrin, Stucky, & Krohn, 2009). Based on these assumptions,
it is argued that when a punishment is certain, swift, and severe, it will deter crime (Beccaria,
1764).
However, researchers have found that regulating behavior solely through the threats of
legal sanctions may not be the most effective way of maintaining order, because non-legal or
informal sanctions are found to be a stronger influence on compliance with laws (Paternoster,
2010). Similarly, social control theory (Hirschi, 1969) posits that establishment of bonds to
conventional institutions and others will deter crime. According to the thesis, individuals who are
attached to their parents, have commitment to and involved in conventional activities, and believe
in the rules of society are less likely to engage in deviance. The ideas of social control theory place
a more emphasis on normative and relational aspects rather than the instrumental approach toward
crime control.
Regardless of their focus, deterrence and rational choice and social control theories are
linked to the current research as they offer insights into people’s compliance with the law and
cooperation with the authorities. A more detailed discussion of this association is reported in a

15

later section on police legitimacy and its relation to compliance with the law and cooperative
behavior.
2. Legitimacy of Authorities
Mechanisms for social control are a common element in all human societies, and they are
designed to bring the behavior of members of society into line with norms, rules, and laws
(Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Aside from the relevance of the traditional criminological theories
discussed above (i.e. deterrence, rational choice, and social control), legitimacy is a type of social
control mechanism that has informed the research of compliance and cooperation. Specifically,
the studies of police legitimacy have shown that understanding how people respond to different
social control mechanisms is an important area of research (Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002). In
other words, legitimacy is a central concept when discussing social control because it represents
an “acceptance by people of the need to bring their behavior into line with the dictates of an
external authority” (Tyler, 1990, p. 25).
Theories about social control and legitimacy abound in the literature. In presenting social
contract theory, Hobbes (1651) argues that people willingly relinquish their rights to the state in
return for the services provided, including protection and security. Other reasons for people’s
submission to the state have attracted scholarly discourses throughout history, diversifying the
approaches to understanding political obligation and its conditions (Hanson & Fowler, 1971).
To illustrate, the notion of a single sovereign power ruling all aspects of social life is not
relevant in today’s society. Especially in liberal democracies, the state-market relations in which
the logic of the Keynesian welfare system and neoliberalism coexist and overlap with each other
(White, 2014) does not allow the traditional way of governing people with sovereignty. Instead of

16

governing through sovereignty, legitimacy plays a crucial role in earning people’s acceptance and
compliance for all major policing agents (Bayley & Shearing, 1996).
Borrowing from Max Weber’s theses that a state’s legitimacy relates to when, how, and
why state authority is recognized and respected by people (Anter, 2014), one can argue that each
node of the security network must be viewed as a legitimate entity in the eyes of the citizens to
perform their work adequately. In addition, the cooperation between the nodes will not be viable
when the constituents of the network perceive each other as illegitimate.
Moreover, consent is a foundational concept of political obligation. Without consent,
obligation to one’s community and authority is not possible (Hanson & Fowler, 1971). According
to the consent theory of obligation, if an individual feels that the government is just and does what
it is supposed to do, consent and obligation to obey are warranted. In other words, when an
authority is considered legitimate, it is likely to be obeyed (Pitkin, 1966). Furthermore, sources of
consent can vary, including personal, considerations of the common good from a citizen’s
perspective, and the general will of the people to constitute the common good (Hegtvedt, 2015).
By earning the consent of people, authority figures are considered to have achieved legitimation
(see Zelditch, 2001).
Prompted by Tyler’s (1990) seminal work on legitimacy and compliance, legitimacy has
become a heavily researched topic over the past two decades (Tankebe, 2013). Legitimacy is a
multifaceted concept that has been defined and approached differently by researchers (Wolfe, Nix,
Kaminski, & Rojek, 2016). For instance, Johnson, Dowd, and Ridgeway (2006) define legitimacy
broadly as the process through which patterns of behavior or a cultural/social object gains
approval. Tyler and Huo (2002) provide more detail by presenting a process-based model of
regulation with an emphasis on the use of fair procedures by authorities in developing trust in the

17

authorities’ motives. Additionally, there is recent discussion on refining the concept further (e.g.
Bottoms & Tankebe, 2012). In the following, existing models and theories of legitimacy are
reviewed to assess how it is developed as well as different dimensions considered by scholars.
3. Models of Legitimacy
To facilitate the understanding of the various models and conceptualization of legitimacy,
identity- and resource-based models can be referred to (Hegtvedt, 2015). The former emphasizes
the way in which subordinates are treated by authorities. An authority can be a representative of
an institution or an individual of a particular rank in an organization. It is closely linked to social
identity theory, which posits that people evaluate their self-worth and self-esteem through
interactions with others (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Moreover, Tyler (1997) argues that the relational
components are involved in psychology of legitimacy, so people assess their status based on how
they are treated by others. To summarize, according to the identity-based model, people’s
perceptions toward an authority and their decisions to give consent are affected by how they are
treated.
On other hand, the resource-based model is built on the social exchange and principles that
focus on distributive justice processes (Hegtvedt & Johnson, 2009; Blau, 1964). In this model,
individuals exchange valued resources, which lead to establishing an interdependent relationship
in which the resource possessed by one is sought by another. According to this idea, an authority
must utilize their resources benevolently in order to demonstrate the willingness to promote
subordinates’ welfare and collective interests. It has been noted that successful exchanges of
resources and perceptions of distributive justice generate two positive outcomes, including the
development of commitment and interpersonal trust (Hegtved, 2015; Lawler et al., 2009).

18

4. Dimensions of Police Legitimacy
Being viewed by the citizens as a legitimate authority is crucial for police, as it promotes
voluntary compliance with laws and cooperation (Tyler, 1990). In order to achieve the goal of
order maintenance and social control through legitimacy, the police have not only engaged in the
traditional practices, but also other activities including public engagement in communities to build
social, political, and economic vitality, which could improve their image in the eyes of citizens.
Considering the amount of available research, there are more than one way of describing
and defining police legitimacy. Nonetheless, based on the current literature on police legitimacy,
obligation to obey, trust in, and normative alignment with legal authorities have been considered
as the main dimensions of legitimacy (e.g. Tyler & Jackson, 2014).
There is also an ongoing discussion of reconstructing and refining the conceptualization of
legitimacy, such as emphasizing the distinction between “dull compulsion” and “justified
authority” as well as inclusion of perceived lawfulness, procedural justice, distributive justice, and
effectiveness as the dimensions of public perceptions of police legitimacy (Tankebe, 2012; 2013).
Although this is an important conceptual advancement, it should be noted that the main focus of
this research is to examine whether the predictors of legitimacy and cooperation found in prior
studies on the citizens’ perceptions of police officers are also relevant to private security officers
in South Korea. Therefore, instead of focusing on the ongoing discussion and development, the
conceptual model of this research is drawn from what has already been established in the literature.
(1) Obligation to Obey
As mentioned, consent is an important factor shaping the perception of obligation to obey
authorities. Beetham (1991) has argued that a precondition of legitimacy is the willing consent of
citizens to defer to authorities which is indicated by following the directives given and accepting

19

the decisions made by them. When comparing to the instrumental theory of compliance (i.e.
deterrence) that employs fear of punishment as the main tool to achieve compliance, studies of
legitimacy place a greater emphasis on the normative aspect. Particularly, it is suggested that by
focusing on the values that lead people to abide by the rules and accept the decisions made by
authorities voluntarily, social regulation functions of legal authorities can be performed efficiently
and effectively (Tyler, 1990). In addition to obligation to obey, there other dimensions of
legitimacy such as trust.
(2) Trust
Trust is defined as “the willingness of a party to be vulnerable to the actions of another
party based on the expectations that the other will perform a particular action important to the
trustor, irrespective of the ability to monitor or control that other party” (Mayer, Davis, &
Schoorman, 1995, p. 712). Additionally, the concept of motive-based trust involves interpretations
about the purposes behind actions. In other words, if one believes the motives of an authority to
be trustworthy, the rules prescribed by them will be followed, the decisions will be accepted, and
cooperative behavior will be fostered (Tyler & Huo, 2002).
(3) Normative Alignment
Normative alignment is the other dimension of legitimacy. It is the perception of sharing
common norms and goals. Therefore, when citizens believe that they have similar values and
purposes with legal authorities and the organizations that they represent, they are more likely to
view them as legitimate. A study suggests that when employees identify with their organization
and its leaders, they accept the values of the group, develop favorable feeling toward their work,
and engage in voluntary behavior aimed at helping the organization to succeed. In sum,
identification with legal authorities and with the norms and goals of the organization will motivate

20

individuals' development of supportive values and promote their cooperative actions (Tyler &
Blader, 2000).
(4) Importance of legitimacy in nodal governance of security
As discussed previously, today's governance of security is carried out by various actors in
the form of a nodal network. In the nodal governance network, legitimacy plays a crucial role in
the policing agents’ performing their work and the voluntary actions of the constituents and
support of one another are reliable forms of cooperation. Trusting that their counterparts in the
network will do the right thing and operate as an ally will also increase the intention for cooperation
(Tyler, 2003).
5. Theories of Cooperation
There are different theories pertaining to the interorganizational cooperation that inform
current research. First, Public-Private Partnerships (PPPs) offers insights into the partnerships
between public and private entities. Moreover, traditional criminological theories that are
originally developed to explain criminality can be useful in discussing attitude and behavioral
intention toward authorities. Additionally, procedural justice theory has been shown to be
particularly relevant when researching the citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy and
willingness to cooperate with the police.
(1) Public-Private Partnerships
PPPs have their roots in public administration. They are developed as a response to the
need for cross-sectorial engagement in service delivery (Brinkerhoff & Brinkerhoff, 2011) and
emphasize shared commitment among the participants for accomplishment of joint goals and
production of synergy effects (Bovaird, 2004, p. 200; Johnston & Shearing, 2003).

21

The concept of legitimacy is important in discussion of PPPs. For example, when assessing
the elements of PPPs-mutuality and organizational identity (Brinkerhoff, 2002) - one can find that
they are closely related to the dimensions of legitimacy. First, mutuality that indicates the
commitment to a shared purpose is linked to normative alignment, because without any alignments
in terms of objective and collective efforts to achieve common goals, PPPs cannot exist. Moreover,
organizational identity provides the rationale for selecting an appropriate partner according to its
capability. Therefore, believing that their partners will do what is good for the bigger body of
public and private entities (i.e. trust) is an important component of PPPs.
In effective PPPs founded on trust and normative alignment, one can expect to see
voluntary cooperation and engagement in extra-role activities by the participants. Furthermore,
PPPs may emerge in different forms. The entities may operate in a structurally horizontal network
or on a hierarchical system such as in the relationship between the police (i.e. authority) and the
private security (i.e. subordinate) in South Korea. Because the hierarchical structure reflects the
relationship between police and private security officers in the current research context, the
theories that inform the discussion of legitimacy in the authority-subordinate settings should be
examined in more detail.
(2) Utility of criminological theories
Aside from the theories of legitimacy, some of the criminological theories are relevant to
the discussion of cooperation with authority. For example, control (Hirschi, 1969; Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990), general strain (Agnew, 1992), defiance (Sharman, 1993), and social
disorganization (Shaw & McKay, 1942) theories not only provide explanations for the causes of
crime and deviance, but also help predict when individuals may or may not cooperate with
authorities.

22

To illustrate, social control theory posits that a person is free to commit delinquent acts
when their ties with conventional institutions are weak or broken (Hirschi, 1969). Applying this
thesis to cooperation, it can be predicted that when people are attached to and identify with their
communities (i.e. normative alignment) and believe that the authorities work toward achieving an
outcome that will benefit everyone (i.e. trust), they are more likely to comply with their directives
(i.e. obligation to obey) while following the prescribed rules. Low self-control (Gottfredson &
Hirschi, 1990) has also been found to be negatively related to compliance with the law and
cooperation with authorities (Reisig et al., 2014; Tankebe et al., 2016).
Moreover, when people feel that they are treated well by police officers, it can foster their
compliance and cooperative behavior. On the other hand, because presentation of adverse stimuli
that produce negative emotions could result in delinquent behavior (Agnew, 1992), it is also
possible that interactions with authorities can impact people’s future behavior. For instance, if a
person feels that they have not been treated fairly by a police officer, it can undermine the
perception of police legitimacy. Consequently, the lack of obligation to obey, trust in, and
normative alignment with the legal authorities may decrease compliance and cooperative behavior.
Along the lines of general strain theory, defiance theory (Sherman, 1993) posits that people
are likely to feel angry and become resistant to the police if their dignity and rights are not
respected. Thus, it can be reasoned that respectful treatment of offenders fosters deference for
authorities in the future (Braithwaite, 1989).
Furthermore, in socially disorganized neighborhoods (Shaw & McKay, 1942), the lack of
control and the prevalence of a deviant subculture that opposes authorities may hinder the
development of a cooperative relationship between the residents and authority figures such as

23

teachers and law enforcement officers. Therefore, in such environment, people are less likely to
feel the obligation to obey, trust, and hold similar values with authorities.
Despite their relevance, empirical testing of the theories mentioned above will not serve
the main purpose of this research because they are originally developed to explain criminal and
deviant behavior. However, drawing from the basic viewpoints of traditional theories, a deeper
exploration of cooperation is possible. Particularly, one can say that the perceptions of authorities
(e.g. fair vs. unfair; effective vs. not effective; trustworthy vs. not trustworthy, etc.) are a crucial
determinant of people’s cooperation with authorities. In the field of criminology and criminal
justice, the concept of procedural justice has been discussed widely as an essential predictor of
legitimacy, which is suggested to be the vital element of cooperation with police officers.
(3) Procedural justice and cooperation with police
The term procedural justice was coined by Thibaut and Walker (1975) to describe people's
perceptions of the treatment they receive during the processes involved in decision-making. In
context of policing, the concept of procedural justice covers the quality of treatment of people and
decision-making by police officers. Furthermore, there are four key elements of procedural justice,
including dignity and respect, trustworthy motives, neutrality, and voice (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003;
Tyler, 2003). One may view police officers to be procedurally fair when they treat people with
dignity and respect, perform their work with trustworthy motives, and make decisions in an
unbiased manner while listening to people’s opinions.
Procedural justice is particularly important in the discussion of legitimacy, as existing
evidence shows that the use of procedural justice is the most effective way to promote legitimacy
(Jackson, Bradford, Hough, Quinton, & Tyler, 2012; Murphy, Hinds, & Fleming, 2008; Sunshine
& Tyler, 2003). Additionally, the quality of decision-making and treatment of subordinates by the

24

authorities have been shown to be an antecedent of motive-based trust, a dimension of legitimacy
(Tyler & Blader, 2000). Furthermore, a recent review of the procedural justice policing shows that
the community policing interventions with at least one procedural justice element include
compliance and cooperation as an outcome, supporting the claim that procedural justice helps
foster cooperation with the police by improving the perception of their legitimacy (Mazerolle,
Sargeant, Cherney, Bennett, Murphy, Antrobus, & Martin, 2014).
6. Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the central concepts and theories of this research have been examined.
Additionally, the dimensions of legitimacy as well as its relevance to the nodal network of security
governance and theoretical function of promoting cooperative behavior are assessed. Furthermore,
procedural justice is introduced as a central concept that increases the perception of legitimacy of
legal authorities.
In Chapter Three, existing studies on the perceptions of police legitimacy and citizen
cooperation are reviewed. Given the hierarchical relationship between the police and the private
security businesses in South Korea, the empirical findings on the citizens’ perceptions of
legitimacy of and their impact on cooperative behavior with police officers are expected to provide
valuable insights into current research. The review is focused on the antecedents and the outcomes
of police legitimacy, and the implications for cooperation between public and private policing
agents are discussed.

25

CHAPTER 3. LITERATURE REVIEW
Police legitimacy is a topic that has been researched extensively in the fields of criminology
and criminal justice. Beginning with Tyler's (1990) seminal work, numerous studies have been
conducted to investigate the determinants of citizens' perceived legitimacy of police officers and
the outcomes of such view. On the other hand, little research has been carried out on private
security officers' perceptions of police legitimacy. Security guards’ attitudes and cooperative
behavior are important because of the nature of their profession and the fact that they play
significant roles as part of today’s network of security governance. Because of this gap in literature,
although private security officers cannot be equated with ordinary citizens considering their
professional roles that overlap with those of the police (Manzo, 2010), the findings of citizen
perceptions of police legitimacy are primarily discussed and referred to.
1. Antecedents of Police Legitimacy
In researching the factors that promote the perceptions of police legitimacy, scholars have
examined both instrumental and normative aspects. The former encompasses predictors including
judgments about distributive justice, police performance, and risk of sanction while the latter
consists of the fairness of the processes through which the police make decisions and exercise their
authority (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003, p. 514).
(1) Instrumental perspectives
Distributive Justice. In the study examining the residents of Oakland and Los Angeles,
California, distributive justice is shown to predict the decision acceptance and satisfaction with the
decision maker (Tyler & Huo, 2002). In other words, when police officers are believed to provide
their services equally across people and communities, people are more likely to accept their
decisions and be satisfied with them. These can be the indicators of obligation to obey authority,

26

a dimension of legitimacy. Additionally, research conducted in New York City supports the
relevance of distributive justice in explaining legitimacy (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Furthermore,
in an Australian context, distributive justice is found to be positively related to police legitimacy
(Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Murphy et al., 2008).
Police performance and effectiveness. Along with perceived equality in regard to
distribution and outcome of policing services, when individuals hold favorable opinions about
performance and effectiveness, they are likely to view police officers as legitimate authorities.
This is a commonly found association in different research settings, including Australia (Hinds &
Murphy, 2007; Murphy et al., 2008), and Slovenia (Reisig, Tankebe, & Mesko, 2014). Although
it has been argued that the research carried out in the United States places less emphasis on
people’s evaluations of the instrumental factors when examining police legitimacy (Hinds &
Murphy, 2007), an investigation using a nationally representative U.S. sample suggests that those
who believe that the police are successful in their crime prevention efforts and apprehension of
burglars are more likely to view them as legitimate (Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Additionally, a similar
relationship is suggested between the perception of police performance and legitimacy among New
York City residents (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
(2) Normative perspectives
By reviewing the current literature on citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy, one can
note that perceived procedural justice is a significant predictor of the perception of legitimacy.
Despite the various approaches to measuring the concept, scholars have argued that when people
feel that police officers perform their duties in a procedurally fair and just manner, the perception
of their legitimacy is promoted. This is in line with the thesis of the process-based model that posits

27

that the capability of the police in regulating people and gaining their support is enhanced through
earning their willing deference (Tyler & Huo, 2002).
For example, treating people with dignity, making decisions based on facts, explaining
decisions to people, and following through on decisions and promises (Reisig et al., 2014) are
found to be positively related to the perception of police legitimacy. In addition, a research finding
emphasizes the importance of procedural justice by showing that experiencing procedural justice
during a personal contact increases perceived legitimacy regardless of the favorability of the
outcome (Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Moreover, positive judgments about the quality of treatment, a
main element of procedural justice, increase obligation to obey, trust in, and normative alignment
with legal authorities. Furthermore, for individuals who have had personal interactions with a
police officer, the perceptions of police officers’ legitimacy are shown to rise when the authorities
are viewed procedurally just, fair in making decisions, and civil during the encounter (Tyler &
Jackson, 2014).
Furthermore, there are studies that have explored the factors that impact people’s motivebased trust as an outcome variable. Particularly, the perceived quality of decision-making and
treatment (Tyler & Blader, 2000) and shared social bonds and understandable decisions (Tyler &
Huo, 2002) are shown to affect motive-based trust in police officers positively. Concluding from
existing evidence, both instrumental and normative variables exert significant influence on the
perceptions of police legitimacy.
Aside from the vast majority of studies that have investigated the perceptions of citizens,
Nalla and Mesko (2015) have examined a sample of private security officers in Slovenia and their
trust in the police. The results are partially consistent with the studies discussed above, showing
that procedural justice of police and the participants’ trust in them are positively related. However,

28

in this particular study, perceived police performance is not shown to be related to the security
officers’ trust.
(3) Socio-demographic characteristics
In addition to the instrumental and normative variables, scholars have found significant
relationships between individuals’ socio-demographic characteristics and their perception of
police legitimacy. Despite mixed results, people who are older (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Murphy
et al., 2008; Tyler & Jackson, 2014) and have received less education (Hinds & Murphy, 2007)
are shown to view police as more legitimate in an Australian jurisdiction. However, age and
perceived police legitimacy in Slovenia are shown to be negatively related (Reisig et al., 2014).
Moreover, a study conducted with a nationally representative sample in the United States has found
education and the perception of police legitimacy to be positively associated (Tyler & Jackson,
2014). Furthermore, a study conducted with a sample of gun offenders, age and having high school
diploma are shown to be positively related to the respondents’ perceptions of legitimacy of the law
(Papachristos et al., 2012).
2. Outcomes of Police Legitimacy
According to Hanson and Fowler (1971), a legitimate authority is an entity that is ought to
be obeyed and deserves consent; legitimacy is a crucial element for the police due to their duty of
regulating people’s behavior. In an endeavor to understand why people obey the law, Tyler (1990)
has found that legitimacy is a strong predictor of legal compliance and people’s willingness to
cooperate with criminal justice authorities. Current literature provides substantial support for this
finding, and studies have elaborated on the various positive consequences of legitimacy.

29

(1) Compliance
Research has indicated that legitimacy promotes compliance with law. Particularly, within
a work setting, when employees identify with an organization and its leaders, they tend to accept
and respect the established values and rules (Tyler & Blader, 2000). In investigating the effects of
legitimacy on public support for policing, Sunshine and Tyler (2003) have concluded that
perceived legitimacy promotes compliance with the law. Specifically, scholars have shown that
the participants who believe the police must be obeyed and have trust in them are more likely to
comply with the law.
In addition, similar findings are offered in other research contexts. For instance, perceived
legitimacy of laws and compliant behavior are shown to be positively associated among tax
offenders and student recipients of social security benefits in Australia (Murphy, Tyler, & Curtis,
2009). Furthermore, the perceptions of police legitimacy are found to decrease offending behavior
among people aged sixteen and over in England and Wales (Jackson, Bradford, Hough, Myhill,
Quinton, & Tyler, 2012). Particularly, people’s attitudes toward the duty to obey and moral
alignment with the police increase compliance with the law.
Moreover, Reisig and researchers (2014) support the relationship between police
legitimacy and compliance with the law through researching young adults in Slovenia and their
behavior. Furthermore, an analysis based on the Chicago Gun Project (CGP) finds that among 141
known gun offenders, those who believe in the substance of the law are less likely to have carried
a gun outside (Papachristos, Meares, & Fagan, 2012). Drawing from existing evidence, it can be
concluded that the perception of legitimacy of the law and authorities promotes compliant
behavior.

30

(2) Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior
Cooperative behavior is another major outcome of police legitimacy. Studies have
suggested that individuals who view the police as legitimate are more willing to cooperate with
them through reporting crimes or helping to identify criminals (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
Similarly, each dimension of legitimacy - obligation to obey, trust and confidence, and normative
alignment - is suggested to foster cooperation with legal authorities (Tyler & Jackson, 2014).
The relationship between police legitimacy and citizens’ cooperative behavior described
above applies to other cultural contexts as well, including Australia (e.g. Murphy et al., 2008;
Murphy et al., 2009). An interesting finding is that previous cooperation with police predicts future
cooperative behavior and intention for cooperation, and the perception of police legitimacy is
shown to be the most powerful predictor of cooperative behavior in general crime control activities
(Murphy et al., 2008). Furthermore, the influence of legitimacy in promoting cooperation
(measured by decisions to report victimization to police) is also found to hold among recent victims
of burglary, robbery, and assault in Trinidad Tobago (Kochel, Parks, & Mastrofski, 2013).
In the specific area of response to terrorism, both the views on the legitimacy of law and
the police are shown to stimulate cooperative behavior. Notably, having a sense of national identity
is suggested to be a contributory factor in cooperation with the police in combating this type of
crime (Cherney & Murphy, 2013).
(3) Empowerment, Identification, and Extra-Role Behavior
In exploring the factors that facilitate the performance of police duties, scholars have found
that in addition to compliance with law and cooperative behavior, willingness to empower the
authority is a crucial factor that enables police officers to carry out their duties efficiently and
effectively. It is suggested that those who feel that police officers are legitimate authorities are

31

likely to support the ideas that the police should be able to stop and question people on the street
and have the power to decide the areas to patrol and provide policing services with. In addition,
when individuals see the police as a legitimate authority, they allow them to make decisions and
employ strategies freely (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). In other words, citizens empower the police by
allowing a greater degree of autonomy and discretion.
The term “discretion” is an important concept in policing, as it is an essential element for
police officers in performing their duties. Without such rights, managing the overwhelming
workloads would not be viable. It has been noted that street-level workers in the public service
sector must exercise discretionary power on a daily basis (Lipsky, 2010), and police officers often
have to bend the rules in order to develop their own patterns of enforcement and achieve the set
goals (Skolnick, 1994). Being viewed by people as the figures to be obeyed and trusted and that
hold similar normative and moral values allows police officers to enjoy autonomy in performing
their tasks.
Furthermore, in today’s network of security governance in which multiple nodes provide
policing services, empowerment of the police by the private security is an important influence on
performance. To illustrate, allowing discretion by police officers and trusting their decisionmaking processes will facilitate the operation of the network.
In addition, engagement in extra-role behavior has been found to be a beneficial outcome
of police legitimacy. In discussion of the influence of collective efficacy, shared values and
cooperating with others to achieve a common goal have been found to be associated with lower
levels of crime (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls 1997). Thus, it can be expected that when people
identify with the norms of the community and believe in the legitimacy of the police, they will
engage in behaviors that are beyond the prescribed roles (Tyler & Blader, 2000). Various findings

32

provide supporting evidence of the impact of police legitimacy in promoting collective efficacy
(Kochel, 2012; Sargeant, Wickes, & Mazerolle, 2013).
Voluntary engagement in extra-role behavior stems from the attitudes and values of group
members, and is centrally motivated by internal forces (Tyler & Blader, 2000). It is also stated that
when legitimacy is defined as shared values, purposes, and goals, it is linked to identification with
a group and to a broader willingness than compliance and cooperation to engage in working with
others to resolve common issues (Tyler, 2011). Citizens are members of society, so when they
identify with the goals of their community (e.g. reducing crime, maintaining order, etc.), they are
expected to engage in extra-role behaviors such as exerting informal social control by monitoring
the activities of teenagers and reporting suspicious events in the neighbors’ premises.
In the context of this research, the network of governance can be considered as a
community. Also, as described earlier, the hierarchy between the police and the private security
businesses manifests an authority-subordinate relationship. Therefore, if private security officers
identify with the values and purposes of their profession as well as those of the broader policing
network, they will engage in extra-role activities to enhance the overall function of the network
and the security of society.
Empirical findings support the above theses by showing that the perception of legitimacy
of legal authorities including the police, the courts, and the law, is positively related to community
identification and perceived social capital in the community. Additionally, normative alignment in
particular is shown to predict the extra-role behavior (Tyler & Jackson, 2014).

33

3. Other Predictors of Cooperation
Current literature demonstrates that the perception of legitimacy is a strong correlate of
compliance and cooperation with legal authorities, empowerment, identification, and engagement
in extra-role behavior that contribute to achievement of collective goals. Aside from the elements
of legitimacy, instrumental (i.e. police performance and effectiveness) and normative judgments
(i.e. procedural justice) that are shown to affect the perception of legitimacy are also suggested to
influence cooperation with authorities.
A study that assesses the impact of fair procedures employed by police officers on
subsequent assault of domestic violence offenders shows that the perception of procedural justice
decreases future violence, even when the outcome of the interaction is not favorable (i.e. arrest)
(Paternoster, Brame, Bachman, & Sherman 1997). The importance of procedural justice in
promoting cooperation is also proposed in an organizational setting (Tyler & Blader, 2000).
Particularly, as in the study with domestic violence offenders (Paternoster et al., 1997), judgments
about the favorability of the outcomes are shown to have little or no effects on cooperative
behaviors. Moreover, procedural justice is shown to exert significant influence on compliance with
tax and social security laws in Australia (Murphy et al., 2009), as well as cooperation with police
through reporting crime victimization in Trinidad Tobago (Kochel et al., 2013).
In addition to the perception of procedural justice, a study examining the residents’ views
of police in New York City via self-report survey has concluded that instrumental factors such as
perceived police performance and risk of sanctions increase compliance with the law and
cooperation with and willingness to empower the police (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Further
evidence also finds that cooperation with legal authorities increases as the perceived risk of
sanctions grows (Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Furthermore, the perceived effectiveness of police is

34

shown to increase public cooperation in the Ghanaian context (Tankebe, 2009). A similar
relationship is found among crime victims in London. On the other hand, an opposite relationship
is found with non-victims, suggesting the impact of police effectiveness on cooperation may vary
by situation and personal experience (Tankebe, 2013).
Prior studies also offer insights into the relationship between socio-demographic
characteristics and cooperation with legal authorities. Specifically, female participants and those
with higher income and education are suggested to comply with the law and cooperate and
empower police to a greater degree, while younger participants are less likely to do so (Sunshine
&Tyler, 2003). Additionally, in a study that compares the U.S. and Ghanaian university students
and their compliance with the law, female students are found to comply with the law more than
males (Tankebe, Reisig, & Wang, 2016).
4. Summary of Existing Literature
Based on the findings in the literature (see Appendix A), it can be concluded that procedural
justice is an essential element in developing the perceptions of legitimacy which promotes
cooperation with legal authorities in various forms, such as compliance, willingness for cooperate
and empowerment, identification, and engagement in extra-role behavior. Moreover, instrumental
factors such as police effectiveness and performance are also among the factors to consider when
predicting police legitimacy and cooperation with the police. Furthermore, the relationships
between the major concepts of current research are shown to be valid across different situational
and cultural settings.
Despite the contributions of prior studies, most of the studies in the areas of citizen
perception of police legitimacy and cooperation with the police are conducted in Western contexts,
especially, in the United States (Hinds & Murphy, 2007). As such, there are few studies that assess

35

the relationships between public and private police and the strategies for their cooperation aimed
at improving the quality of social regulation.
5. Chapter Summary
This chapter has discussed the antecedents as well as the outcomes of police legitimacy.
Prior research shows that both instrumental and normative factors predict police legitimacy, and
evidence supports the crucial role that it plays in fostering cooperation with authorities. The
external validity of the research findings is confirmed through the studies in other cultural settings.
Nonetheless, there is need for additional research in non-Western contexts, especially in the area
of the perception of police legitimacy and cooperation among private security officers.

36

CHAPTER 4. METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the methods employed in current research. First, the research site as
well as the process of sampling and data collection are reported. Moreover, the development of as
well as the items included in the survey questionnaire to measure independent and dependent
variables are described. In subsequent sections, the process of entering, coding, and cleaning the
data is explained. Lastly, the analytic strategies used to investigate the relationships among the
variables and the predictors on police legitimacy and cooperation with police officers are
discussed.
1. Research Site: Seoul Metropolitan Areas, South Korea
The cultural context of this research is South Korea. This is a suitable setting not only
because of the potential contribution made to the little existing knowledge in regard to the attitudes
of private security guards toward police officers, but also due to the rapid growth of the nation’s
private security industry. To illustrate, South Korea has experienced growth in the number of
individuals employed in the private security industry (153,767) which exceeds that of the public
sector (i.e. police officer, 113,077) (Korea National Police Agency, 2015), making it a desirable
setting for an exploratory research on the inter-organizational cooperation.
Moreover, the Seoul metropolitan areas that include Seoul, the capital, Gyeonggi Province,
and Incheon are chosen as the main locations from which most of the sample are drawn. The reason
for selecting these areas is due to the fact that nearly 50 percent of the nation’s total population
reside in them (Korean Statistical Information Service, 2015), making them the hub of economic,
social, and cultural aspects of life. Furthermore, 92,698 (60% of total) contract private security
officers are employed in these areas, reflecting the weight they carry as the major cities in the
country (Korea National Police Agency, 2015).

37

2. Data Collection
The sample for this research was drawn from two large private security companies located
in the Seoul metropolitan areas and two major casinos, one operating in Seoul and the other based
in Gangwon Province. The security officers from the security companies worked on a contract
basis while the casino security guards belonged to the in-house staff.
It should be noted that the Gangwon Province is not part of the Seoul metropolitan areas,
the primary target locations for sampling. Nonetheless, considering their size and the fact that the
casino business is overseen by the Ministry of Trade, Industry and Energy in addition to the
gambling venue being treated as a public institution, analyzing their security employees can offer
valuable insights.
Additionally, despite the fact that the Korean National Police Agency (KNPA) authorized
private security businesses, oversaw the industry, and kept the roster of the registered private
security businesses, the author found that it was not possible to obtain such list for a private
research purpose. As a result, despite the strong point of a probability sampling that allows for
generalization of the findings to more extensive geographical areas (Bachman & Paternoster,
2004), a convenience sampling was used.
Given the non-probability nature of the sample, the participants were not representative of
the whole private security populations in South Korea. However, the size of the companies, the
number of employees, and the cities in which they operated assured that a variety of individuals in
regard to socio-demographic and work-related characteristics had been reached out to and
recruited. Moreover, adding in-house security officers that were not part of the private security
officer populations reported by KNPA contributed to the diversity of the sample.

38

It is argued that research questions and purposes are essential elements that guide
methodology (Tashakkori & Teddlie, 1998; DeCuir-Gunby, 2008). Because the purpose of this
research was to examine the relationships between the factors shown to have an association with
cooperation with legal authorities, a cross-sectional survey using paper-and-pencil questionnaire
was used. Particularly, this cross-sectional survey method was a suitable way to obtain in-depth
information about the perceptions of a large group of private security officers at once (Kerlinger,
1964). Furthermore, collecting data from one group of people at once was efficient and less timeconsuming (Mann, 2003).
The survey instrument was constructed in English first and then was translated to Korean,
which was validated by two individuals fluent in both languages. The data collection procedures
did not expose the participants to a deliberate treatment that may pose threats to them. The
respondents were also reminded of their rights as well as the voluntary nature of the survey that
assured anonymity and confidentiality.
975 questionnaires were distributed to the contract security officers and after discarding
the cases with missing data, 261 (27% response rate) were deemed useable for analysis. In addition,
out of the 225 questionnaires distributed to in-house security officers at the casinos, 175 were
analyzed, representing a 78 percent response rate.
3. Measurement
In conducting research, theoretical models provide the foundations (Bernard & Ritti, 1990).
The analytical framework for this study is developed based on Tyler and Jackson’s (2014)
examination of the predictors of compliance, willing cooperation, and engagement in
communities. To illustrate, the researchers conceptualize legitimacy as a multidimensional
construct comprised of obligation to obey and trust in and moral alignment with authorities.

39

Moreover, as Sunshine and Tyler (2003) have considered compliance, cooperation, and
empowerment as a form of cooperation, these were measured as dependent variables in addition
to identification with security profession and engagement in extra-role behavior.
The measures for this research were built on existing literature and were adapted to make
them suitable for the specific context of South Korea. For all attitudinal measures, five-point
Likert-type scales were used, and items on socio-demographic characteristics, career choice, and
contact experience with police were included in the survey instrument as well.
(1) Dependent variables
Compliance with the law and regulations (Îą= 0.80) is an outcome of legitimacy that
researchers have examined extensively. By adapting existing items to the context of South Korea,
the respondents were asked to indicate how often they had parked a car illegally, disposed of trash
and litter illegally, made noise at night, sped or broke traffic laws, and violated copyrights during
the last six months by choosing from never (1) to very often (5). It should be noted that the offenses
included in previous studies (e.g. Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008) that were not
prevalent in South Korea such as buying possibly stolen items on the street and using illegal drugs
such as marijuana were replaced with the ones commonly committed in the country. To meet the
suitability of the research context, the offenses presented in the instruments were common
infractions in the country.
Another dependent variable of this research is private security guards’ likelihood of
cooperative behavior with police officers. The vast majority of existing research that has assessed
citizens’ perceptions of police officers, including Sunshine and Tyler (2003) and Tyler and Fagan
(2008) have operationalized people’s willingness to cooperate with police by asking whether they
will call the police to report a crime and an accident, help the police to find someone suspected of

40

committing a crime, call and give the police information to help the police solve a crime, and report
dangerous or suspicious activities in the neighborhood.
Based on the prior operationalization, the following seven items were included to measure
the security guards’ willingness to cooperate with the police (α= 0.91): How likely will you report
a minor crime you have witnessed to the police?; report a serious crime you have witnessed to the
police?; call the police to report an accident?; provide police with information about an
accident?; provide police with information to solve a crime?; help the police to find a suspect of
a crime?; and report suspicious or dangerous activities to the police? The answer choices ranged
from very unlikely (1) to very likely (5).
Furthermore, the respondents’ willingness to empower the police (α= 0.82) was also taken
into account as an outcome variable. Items including “The police should have the right to stop and
question people on the street,” “The police should have the power to decide which areas of the
city should receive the most police protection,” “Because of their training and experience, the
police are best able to decide how to deal with crime in neighborhood,” “The police should have
the power to do whatever they think is needed to fight crime,” and “If we give enough power to
the police, they will be able to effectively control crime” were added with the answer choices
ranging from strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5).
Tyler and Blader (2000) argue that when individuals identify with their organizations, they
engage in voluntary behaviors that will promote the success of the groups motivated by favorable
attitudes (i.e. extra-role behavior). Private security officers are part of a large network of security
governance, so one can predict that they will engage in voluntary activities that affect the security
environments positively if they identify themselves with the security profession. Engagement in
community has been captured through identification, perceived social capital, political activity,

41

and economic activity (Tyler & Jackson, 2014). In this research, the questions were modified to
serve the nature of the sample as well as the research context.
Specifically, two separate scales were created, one for identification with security
profession and the other for actual engagement in extra-role behavior for community security.
Identification with the security profession (Îą= 0.87) was developed by asking the respondents to
indicate their degrees of agreement (strongly disagree=1; strongly agree=5) to the following
statements: I am proud to contribute to the safety of society; when someone praises the
achievements of other security agents, it feels like a personal compliment; the things that my
organization stands for are important to me; being a part of the security network is important to
the way that I think of myself as a person; and people respect what I contribute to the security of
community. Furthermore, in order to understand the level of engagement in extra-role behavior
(Îą= 0.88), the questionnaire asked the participants how frequently they attended meetings to
discuss security problems in community, communicated their views about community security
issues to elected officials, and talked with their neighbors about security problems in their
community (never=1; very often=5).

42

Table 4.1 Measurements of Dependent Variables
Survey Items

Factor
Loading

Compliance (reverse-coded)
parked a car illegally
disposed of trash and litter illegally
made noise at night
sped or broke traffic laws
violated copyrights
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO

0.77
0.77
0.77
0.75
0.69
0.80
0.77

Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior
How likely will you report a minor crime you have witnessed to the police?
How likely will you report a serious crime you have witnessed to the police?
How likely will you call the police to report an accident?
How likely will you provide police with information about an accident?
How likely will you provide police with information to solve a crime?
How likely will you help the police to find a suspect of a crime?
How likely will you report suspicious or dangerous activities to the police?
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO

0.69
0.81
0.86
0.86
0.87
0.86
0.75
0.91
0.88

Empowerment
The police should have the right to stop and question people on the street.
The police should have the power to decide which areas of the city should
receive the most police protection.
Because of their training and experience, the police are best able to decide how
to deal with crime in neighborhood.
The police should have the power to do whatever they think is needed to fight
crime.
If we give enough power to the police, they will be able to effectively control
crime.
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO

43

0.74
0.79
0.76
0.74
0.81
0.82
0.77

Table 4.1 (cont’d)
Survey Items

Factor
Loading

Identification with Security Profession
I am proud to contribute to the safety of society.
When someone praises the achievements of other security agents, it feels like a
personal compliment.
The things that my organization stands for are important to me.
Being a part of the security network is important to the way that I think of myself
as a person.
People respect what I contribute to the security of community.
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO
Extra-Role Behavior
How often do you attend meetings to discuss security problems in community?
How often do you communicate your views about community security issues to
elected officials?
How often do you talk with your neighbors about security problems in your
community?
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO

0.80
0.81
0.87
0.86
0.73
0.87
0.84

0.91
0.92
0.87
0.88
0.73

(2) Independent variables
Empirical evidence shows that legitimacy plays a significant role in promoting cooperation
with the police. Therefore, three dimensions of legitimacy (i.e. perceived obligation to obey and
trust in and normative alignment with the institutions of policing) were measured as follows. First,
taking from Tyler (1990), Sunshine and Tyler (2003), Tyler and Fagan (2008), and Tyler and
Jackson (2014), respondents were asked to indicate their degree of agreement (strongly disagree=1;
strongly agree=5) to “people should obey the law even if it goes against what they think is right,”
“disobeying the law is seldom justified,” and “if a person is doing something and a police officer
tells them to stop, they should stop even if they feel that what they are doing is legal” to express
their levels of obligation to obey the law and legal authorities (Îą= 0.63).

44

Additionally, participants’ trust (α= 0.90) in the South Korean police were measured by
using the following items (strongly disagree=1; strongly agree=5), “the police can be trusted to
make decisions that are right for the people in my neighborhood,” “people's basic rights are well
protected by the police in my neighborhood,” “I am proud of the work of the South Korean police,”
and “I have confidence that the South Korean police can do its job well,” (Sunshine & Tyler,
2003; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Fagan, 2008).
Lastly, normative alignment was captured through the items drawn from Tyler and Fagan
(2008). To illustrate, the extent to which the respondents identified themselves with the police and
their values (i.e. normative alignment; Îą= 0.77) was explored (strongly disagree=1; strongly
agree=5). “If I talked to most of the police officers, I would find they have similar views to my own
on many issues,” “my background is similar to that of many of the police officers,” “I can usually
understand why the police are acting as they are in a particular situation,” and “most of the police
officers would value what I contribute to security” were included.
In addition to the dimensions of legitimacy, measures for the antecedents of legitimacy,
both normative and instrumental, were created. As discussed, procedural justice (Îą= 0.92) has been
found in numerous empirical studies to have significant influence on legitimacy (e.g. Sunshine &
Tyler, 2003). With a basis on the existing evidence (e.g. Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Hinds & Murphy,
2007; Tyler & Fagan, 2008), the questionnaire asked the respondents to indicate their degree of
agreement to the following statements (strongly disagree (1) to strongly agree (5)): Police make
decisions about how to handle problems in fair ways; police make their decisions based on facts,
not their personal biases or opinions; police clearly explain the reasons for their actions; police
give people a chance to express their views before making decisions; police consider people's

45

opinions when deciding what to do; police treat people with dignity and respect; and police are
concerned about respecting citizens’ rights.
Furthermore, instrumental factors such as perceived risk of sanction (e.g. Tyler & Fagan,
2008), police performance (e.g. Jackson et al., 2012), and distributive justice (e.g. Hinds &
Murphy, 2007) are shown to affect people’s views on police legitimacy. The respondents indicated
the likelihood of sanction (Îą= 0.83) for committing the offenses (i.e. illegal parking, illegal
disposal of trash and litter, making noise at night, speeding or breaking traffic laws, and violating
copyrights) by choosing from the options, very unlikely (1) to very likely (5) (Sunshine & Tyler,
2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008).
The participants’ perceptions of police performance (α= 0.82) were assessed by asking how
much they agreed that the police did a good job in dealing with problems in the community,
preventing crime, keeping order on the streets, and responding to emergencies (strongly
disagree=1; strongly agree=5) (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Tyler & Fagan,
2008; Jackson et al., 2012).
Moreover, the participants’ opinions on the distribution of police services and equal
treatment of people (Îą= 0.92) were explored by the following items: People receive the outcomes
they deserve under the law when they deal with the police; the police provide their services equally
over different communities; the police provide the same quality of service to people living in all
areas of the city; the police treat everyone equally; and it is about who you are when it comes to
police (reverse-coded) (1=strongly disagree; 5=strongly agree).
The scales were created by using appropriate statistical tests. To illustrate, Exploratory
Factor Analysis (EFA) was conducted by using principal component analysis with a varimax
rotation in order to reduce the variables into a smaller set of items and investigate the

46

unidimensionality of the constructs (Williams, Onsman, & Brown, 2010). Furthermore, in addition
to checking the internal consistency of each scale (Cronbach’s alpha), the Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin
(KMO) test was carried out to confirm the suitability for factor analysis (Gorsuch, 1983).
Table 4.2 Measurements of Independent Variables
Survey Item
Obligation to Obey
People should obey the law even if it goes against what they think is right.
Disobeying the law is seldom justified.
If a person is doing something and a police officer tells them to stop, they
should stop even if they feel that what they are doing is legal.
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO
Trust
The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for the people in
my neighborhood.
People's basic rights are well protected by the police in my neighborhood.
I am proud of the work of the South Korean police.
I have confidence that the South Korean police can do its job well.
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO
Normative Alignment
If I talked to most of the police officers, I would find they have similar views
to my own on many issues.
My background is similar to that of many of the police officers.
I can usually understand why the police are acting as they are in a particular
situation.
Most of the police officers would value what I contribute to security.
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO
Risk of Sanction
Illegal parking
Illegal disposal of trash and litter
Making noise at night
Speeding or breaking traffic laws
Violating copyrights
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO

Factor Loading
0.84
0.78
0.67
0.63
0.61

0.69
0.68
0.50
0.52
0.90
0.80

0.80
0.80
0.79
0.70
0.77
0.78

0.78
0.84
0.82
0.66
0.76
0.83
0.77

47

Table 4.2 (cont’d)
Survey Item
Police Performance
The police do a good job dealing with problems in the community.
The police do a good job preventing crime
The police do a good job keeping order on the streets.
The police do a good job responding to emergencies.
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO
Distributive Justice
People receive the outcomes they deserve under the law when they deal with
the police.
The police provide their services equally over different communities.
The police provide the same quality of service to people living in all areas of
the city.
The police treat everyone equally.
It is about who you are when it comes to police.
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO
Procedural Justice
Police make decisions about how to handle problems in fair ways.
Police make their decisions based on facts, not their personal biases or
opinions.
Police clearly explain the reasons for their actions.
Police give people a chance to express their views before making decisions.
Police consider people's opinions when deciding what to do.
Police treat people with dignity and respect.
Police are concerned about respecting citizens’ rights.
Cronbach’s Alpha
KMO

Factor Loading
0.82
0.87
0.84
0.86
0.82
0.87

0.81
0.89
0.87
0.81
0.50
0.83
0.83

0.83
0.74
0.78
0.84
0.87
0.84
0.85
0.92
0.91

Aside from the attitudinal predictors, contact experience with authority and opinions about
it have also been shown to impact the willingness for cooperation. Tyler and Huo (2002)
investigate satisfaction with and motive-based trust in authority based on personal experience. In
an attempt to continue this line of endeavor, the questionnaire included an item asking the security
officers whether had had contact with a police officer during the past twelve months (yes or no).

48

Finally, the respondents’ socio-demographic characteristics were examined. Existing
literature shows that socio-demographic variables are not as consistent in predicting cooperation
with authorities. Nonetheless, there are studies that report socio-demographic characteristics such
as gender are related to cooperative behavior (e.g. Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Therefore, items
asking for the participants’ gender, age, years of experience, income, marital status, education,
rank, and type of employment were added.
4. Analytic Strategies
The returned questionnaires were first coded, entered, and cleaned by using statistical
software. Then, several statistical techniques were employed to answer the research question.
Descriptive statistics, such as frequency, range, mean, and standard deviation for each variable
were assessed to explore the basic features of the data. Moreover, independent-sample t-tests and
Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) were carried out to investigate the group differences by sociodemographic characteristics and contact experience with a police officer in independent and
dependent variables.
In addition, before proceeding to multivariate analyses, bivariate correlations between
independent variables and the Variance Inflation Factors (VIFs) were reviewed for any potential
multicollinearity issues. The main multivariate analysis conducted was Ordinary Least Squares
(OLS), which was a suitable technique for exploring the predictors of the respondents’ perceptions
of legitimacy and cooperation with police. Various OLS models were developed and run, including
the subgroup analyses between contract and in-house officers and between participants with
contact experience with a police officer and those without such encounter in addition to the
analyses using the overall sample.

49

The decision to run the subgroup OLS analyses were made based on the existing
knowledge that the psychological states experienced and the treatment received at work among the
contract guards may vary from those among the in-house staff. Particularly, one can imagine that
the security officers who are hired through outsourcing work under conditions that increase the
perceptions of job insecurity. Among the dimensions of job insecurity, lack of opportunities for
promotion and freedom to schedule work, perceived threat of the occurrence of events that could
affect one’s job such as being fired or laid off, and feeling powerless in situations where one’s
status in the organization is jeopardized (Greenhalgh & Rosenblatt, 1948) can be relevant to the
contract security officers.
Moreover, it has been found that job insecurity leads to intentions to quit as well as
decreased commitment and satisfaction (Ashford, Lee, & Bobko, 1989). Drawing from Ashford
and colleagues (1989), the distinct work conditions between contract and in-house security officers
and the potential negative influence of job insecurity warrants a subgroup analysis between the
two types of employment.
Furthermore, because contact experience with the police has been shown to affect citizens’
attitudes toward them (Cheurprakobkit, 2002), subgroup analyses based on contact were
conducted. Prior studies have suggested contradicting relationships between contact and attitude.
Specifically, some researchers have found that police contacts lead to positive attitudes toward the
police (Jacob, 1971), while others have argued that the contrary is true (Griffiths & Winfree, 1982).
Therefore, comparing the explanatory variables of police legitimacy and cooperative behaviors
between those with prior contact and those with vicarious or no contact will allow a deeper
exploration.

50

Lastly, because missing data could affect the analytic findings significantly (McKnight,
McKnight, Sidani, & Figueredo, 2007), the nature of missing data were explored and its potential
influence on the results was examined. In addition, appropriate steps were taken to ensure that the
assumptions of OLS were not violated and the validity of the results was not affected by related
issues.
5. Chapter Summary
In this chapter, the research methods guided by the research question and existing studies
were described. It was noted that in order to examine the factors that impact private security
officers’ willingness to cooperate with police officers in Korea, a cross-sectional survey method
was employed. The survey procedure was administered to a convenience sample of security
officers working for two large private security businesses located in the Seoul metropolitan areas
(i.e. contract security officers) and two major casinos located in Seoul and in Gangwon Province
(i.e. in-house security officers). Furthermore, the analytic strategies used, including univariate,
bivariate, and multivariate analyses, were presented.

51

CHAPTER 5. FINDINGS
In this chapter, findings from statistical analyses are reported in detail. First, univariate
analyses of the variables, including descriptive statistics are described. In particular, frequency,
percentage, and characteristics of central tendency are discussed. Next, findings from the
independent sample t-tests and one-way ANOVA are reviewed to see whether there are any
significant mean differences in regard to the attitudinal variables comprising police legitimacy and
cooperation with the police in groups by gender, monthly income, marital status, education, type
of employment, and contact experience. Moreover, potential multicollinearity issues are assessed
based on the results of bivariate correlation analysis as well as tests for VIF and tolerance.
Results of each OLS regression model are also discussed. Specifically, three models
predicting each dimension of legitimacy (i.e. obligation to obey authorities, trust in the police, and
normative alignment with the police) are assessed. In addition, five models with outcome
variables, compliance with law, willingness to cooperate with authority, empowerment of the
police, identification with security profession, and extra-role behavior are presented.
1. Descriptive Statistics
As discussed in Chapter Four, a total of 436 private security officers were analyzed in this
research4. The vast majority of the sample were males (93.8%) and the mean age of the participants
was forty-eight. Whether these numbers reflected those of the field of private security in South
Korea could not be confirmed due to the lack of official statistics. Nonetheless, when compared to
the police officer population, the percentage of female security officers (≈ 6%) was lower than that

4

The useable survey questionnaires returned by 436 private security officers were included for
analysis, and possible missing data issues were assessed and addressed properly. The results of
missing data analysis confirmed that the missing items were Missing Completely At Random
(MCAR). Therefore, a listwise deletion method was used in the analyses. As a result, the
number of cases included was not equal to the total number of sample.
52

of female police officers (≈ 10%). Additionally, the respondents’ average age was comparable to
those of assistant inspectors and inspectors (i.e. 48), and the wider range for age among the
participants (i.e. 22 to 78) reflected the fact that there were no established timelines for retirement
in the private sector (Korea National Police Agency, 2015).
The respondents’ years of experience in the private security field5 ranged from 0 to 20
years, and about a half (50.27%) of the officers reported earning less than two million Won
(≈ 2,000 U.S. dollars) monthly. Considering the approximate average monthly wage of three
million Won (≈ 3,000 U.S. dollars) (all fields of labor) in Seoul in 2015 (Ministry of Employment
and Labor, 2015), it can be noted that the private security was not a financially rewarding
profession.
In addition, most of the private security officers in this research were married (70.9%), and
those who were single or in other relationship status comprised 29 percent of the sample (29.1%).
Furthermore, 42 percent (42.37%) of the participants had a high school diploma, and about a
quarter (22.76%) and a third (34.87%) received an associate degree and bachelors or a higher
degree, respectively.
Moreover, 39 percent had had contact experience with a police officer during the past
twelve months. For the perceived risk of sanction for illegitimate activities (ranges from 5 to 25),
the mean value of 14.88 suggested that the respondents saw the likelihood of being punished for
the listed offenses as average. Moreover, the mean score 14.45 for overall police performance
indicated that the private security officers in this study held favorable opinions about the work of
the police. Although the attitudes were not as positive in terms of the distributive (x̄= 15.76) and
the procedural justice (x̄= 23.27) of police services, the respondents found them to be satisfactory.

5

Appendix C provides information on their career choices.
53

In regard to the perception of police legitimacy, the participants were shown to view the police as
a legitimate authority, shown by the mean scores of the three scales constituting five-point Likerttype items (i.e. 1= strongly disagree to 5= strongly agree).
The descriptive statistics of the dependent variables (i.e. compliance with law, likelihood
of cooperating with authority, empowerment of the police, identification with the security
profession, and extra-role behavior) suggested that except for engagement in extra-role behavior,
the participants generally did things or held attitudes that were in line with supporting their public
counterparts through cooperation.
Particularly, the officers reported that they complied with the law by refraining from
illegitimate activities (x̄= 22.82), were likely to cooperate with the police in the areas of reporting
and investigating crime incidents (x̄= 25.35), supported empowerment of the police through
granting authority (x̄= 18.06), and identified with their profession and the contribution made as
part of their work (x̄= 17.58). However, as noted, the overall engagement in extra-role behavior
for community safety and security was marginal (x̄= 5.20).

54

Table 5.1 Descriptive Statistics of Participants
Description

n

%

Socio-Demographic characteristics
Gender
0=Female
1=Male

27
408

6.21
93.79

Age on last birthday

429

22

78

47.87/16.59

Years of Experience

428

0

20

5.80/4.37

436

5

25

14.88/4.12

436
436
436

4
5
7

20
25
35

14.45/2.62
15.76/3.32
23.27/4.69

Monthly Income in
million Won

0= Less than 2 million
Won
1= 2 million Won or
more

184

50.27

182

49.73

Marital Status

0=Not married
1=Married

117
285

29.10
70.90

Education

1=High School
175
2=Associate Degree
94
3=Bachelor’s or higher 144
Degree

42.37
22.76
34.87

Type of Employment

1=In-house
2=Contract

161
259

38.33
61.67

0= No

266

61.0

1= Yes

170

39.0

Contact experience
Contact with a police
officer

Instrumental & Normative
Perceived risk of
sanction
Police performance
Distributive justice
Procedural justice

55

Min. Max. Mean/SD

Table 5.1 (cont’d)
Description

n

Legitimacy
Obligation to obey
Trust
Moral alignment
Cooperation
Compliance with law
Likelihood of
cooperative behavior
Empowerment
Identification with
security profession
Extra-role behavior

%

Min. Max. Mean/SD

436
436
436

3
4
4

15
20
20

11.27/1.83
13.80/2.95
12.99/2.52

431
435

10
10

25
35

22.82/2.74
25.35/5.02

436
436

6
5

25
25

18.06/3.30
17.58/3.43

435

3

15

5.20/2.59

2. Bivariate Analysis
After investigating each of the socio-demographic characteristics and the respondents’
attitudes toward the police work, police legitimacy, and cooperative intention and behavior with
the police, whether any differences existed between and among socio-demographic groups in terms
of the perceptions was assessed. The following presents the detailed findings of such analyses.
(1) Independent samples T-Tests and one-way ANOVA
Obligation to Obey. According to the results, significant differences were found between
the categories of marital status and contact experience. The married participants’ mean score for
the overall Obligation to Obey was higher than that of the unmarried individuals (11.51 vs. 10.85;
t= 3.09; p≤ 0.01). In particular, the degrees to which the married respondents viewed that
disobeying the law could not be justified (4.03 vs. 3.81; t= 2.57; p≤ 0.01) and believed that people
should follow police officers’ instructions (3.61 vs. 3.29; t= 3.09; p≤ 0.01) were greater than those
of the unmarried participants. Furthermore, the participants with contact experience with a police
officer during the past twelve months had a higher mean score for the Obligation to Obey scale
(11.59 vs. 11.06; t= 2.98; p≤ 0.01). Compared to the private security officers with no contact
56

experience, they considered the law to be something that should be obeyed (3.90 vs. 3.76; t= 1.97;
p≤ 0.05) and believed that police officers’ directions should be followed (3.66 vs. 3.41; t= 2.83;
p≤ 0.01) to a greater extent.
Table 5.2 T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Obligation to Obey
Variables

Income
0= Less than 2
million Won
1= 2 million
Won or more
T-test
Married
0= No
1= Yes
T-test
Education
1= High school
2= Associate
degree
3= Bachelor’s or
higher
F

Overall

Obligation to Obey (Mean Scores)
Obeying the lawa Disobeying the
lawb

11.20

3.76

3.99

3.45

11.37

3.87

3.90

3.60

0.91

1.46

1.12

1.59

10.85
11.51
3.09**

3.75
3.87
1.43

3.81
4.03
2.57**

3.29
3.61
3.09**

11.34
10.99

3.82
3.70

4.02
3.83

3.50
3.46

11.32

3.86

3.94

3.51

1.26

1.36

2.05

0.11

57

Following police
officers’
instructionsc

Table 5.2 (cont’d)
Type of
Employment
1= In-house
2= Contract
T-test

11.25
11.32
0.41

3.82
3.83
0.19

3.90
3.98
1.09

3.53
3.51
0.24

Contact with a
police officer in
the last 12
months
0= No
11.06
3.76
3.90
3.41
1= Yes
11.59
3.90
4.03
3.66
T-test
2.98**
1.97*
1.87
2.83**
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001
a. People should obey the law even if it goes against what they think is right.
b. Disobeying the law is seldom justified.
c. If a person is doing something and a police officer tells them to stop, they should stop even
if they feel that what they are doing is legal.

Trust. In regard to trust in the police, the level of pride in the work of the police was higher
among the participants earning lower monthly income (i.e. Less than 2 million Won) (3.52 vs.
3.18; t= 3.41). Also, the married respondents were found to trust the police more than the
unmarried respondents, shown by each item and the overall Trust scale.
For education, which had three categories, one-way ANOVA was carried out. Findings
suggested that there were between-group dissimilarities in regard to the level of Trust. In order to
examine which specific groups showed statistically significant differences, Bonferroni post hoc
tests were conducted. Results indicated that for the overall scale and each individual item, the
participants whose highest education level was high school had higher mean scores than those with
an associate degree (14.37 vs. 12.65; p≤ 0.001). They were also shown to trust the police to make
the right decision for the people (3.64 vs 3.21; p≤ 0.001) and protect people’s rights (3.55 vs. 3.19;

58

p≤ 0.001) and hold pride in the work of the police (3.60 vs. 3.06; p≤ 0.001) to a greater degree
than the comparison group (i.e. people with an associate degree).
Moreover, the respondents whose highest educational degree earned was bachelor’s or
higher held greater level of overall Trust (13.73 vs. 12.65; p≤ 0.01), including trust in decision
making (3.52 vs. 3.21; p≤ 0.01) and protections of people’s rights in neighborhood (3.51 vs. 3.19;
p≤ 0.01) than the participants with an associate degree. Furthermore, individuals that reported high
school as their highest education were shown to hold greater pride in the work of the police
compared to those with a bachelor’s or a higher degree (3.60 vs. 3.29; p≤0.01). Additionally, their
Trust in the police was greater than that of the individuals with an associate degree (3.57 vs 3.18;
p≤ 0.01).
Lastly, the level of trust in the police differed by the participants’ employment type. To
illustrate, the contract security officers expressed greater Trust (in overall scale and all individual
items) compared to the in-house officers.
Table 5.3 T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Trust
Variables
Overall

Trust (Mean Scores)
Right
People's
Proud of the
decisions for rights
work of the
the people in protected by South Korean
neighborhood the police in
policec
a
neighborhood

Confidence
in the police
doing the job
welld

b

Income
0= Less than 2
million Won
1= 2 million
Won or more
T-test
Married
0= No
1= Yes
T-test

13.95

3.53

3.47

3.52

3.43

13.37

3.45

3.40

3.18

3.35

1.81

1.05

0.79

3.41***

0.88

12.93
14.18
3.91***

3.29
3.61
3.76***

3.27
3.55
3.32***

3.17
3.50
3.29***

3.20
3.52
3.38***

59

Table 5.3 (cont’d)
Education
1= High
school
2= Associate
degree
3= Bachelor’s
or higher
F
Type of
Employment
1= In-house
2= Contract
T-test
Contact with a
police officer in
the last 12
months
0= No
1= Yes
T-test

14.37

3.64

3.55

3.60

3.57

12.65

3.21

3.19

3.06

3.18

13.73

3.52

3.51

3.29

3.41

10.65***

9.30***

7.33***

11.59***

6.06**

13.19
14.24
3.30***

3.41
3.59
2.28*

3.36
3.54
2.13*

3.15
3.56
4.22***

3.28
3.55
2.89**

13.80
13.81
0.05

3.47
3.57
1.26

3.44
3.51
0.78

3.42
3.34
0.80

3.46
3.39
0.75

*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001
a. The police can be trusted to make decisions that are right for the people in my neighborhood.
b. People's basic rights are well protected by the police in my neighborhood.
c. I am proud of the work of the South Korean police.
d. I have confidence that the South Korean police can do its job well.
Normative Alignment. Statistically significant mean score differences between and among
socio-demographic groups were found in normative alignment with the police as well. The married
respondents indicated higher overall level of normative alignment than the unmarried participants
(13.25 vs. 12.44; t= 2.97; p≤ 0.01). Particularly, such differences were found in believing that
private security and police officers held similar views on various issues (3.36 vs. 3.07; t= 3.50; p≤
0.001) and that police officers would value their contribution to security (3.49 vs. 3.26; t= 2.62;
p≤ 0.01).
In addition, the private security officers with a bachelor’s or a more advanced degree
displayed greater overall normative alignment compared to the individuals with an associate
degree (13.32 vs. 12.31; p≤ 0.01). They were more likely to see that they shared similar
60

backgrounds as police officers (3.14 vs. 2.78; p≤ 0.01). Moreover, people holding a bachelor’s or
a higher degree reported that they understood to a greater extent the reasons behind the actions
taken by police officers compared to those with lower educational levels (3.49 vs. 3.26; p≤ 0.05 &
3.49 vs. 3.19; p≤ 0.001). Furthermore, when compared to others with an associate degree, the
participants whose highest educational level was high school believed that police officers would
value their contribution to a higher degree (3.51 vs. 3.16; p≤ 0.01).
Differences in attitudes toward normative alignment were also found between in-house and
contract private security officers. The in-house officers reported that they understood the reasons
behind police actions at a higher degree than the contract employees (3.44 vs. 3.26; t= 2.48; p≤
0.01). On the other hand, the contract officers agreed more to the statement that police officers
valued their contribution to security (3.51 vs. 3.26; t= 2.99; p≤ 0.01).
Additionally, respondents with contact experience with a police officer during the past 12
months exhibited higher overall normative alignment with police officers than those without such
encounter (13.44 vs. 12.71; t= 2.79; p≤ 0.01). Particularly, they were shown to believe that private
security and police officers shared common backgrounds (3.16 vs. 2.84; t= 3.80; p≤ 0.001) and
reported understanding the reasons for police actions (3.49 vs. 3.22; t= 3.80; p≤ 0.001) to a greater
degree the people without contact experience.

61

Table 5.4 T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Normative Alignment
Variables
Overall

Income
0= Less than 2
million Won
1= 2 million
Won or more
T-test
Married
0= No
1= Yes
T-test
Education
1= High school
2= Associate
degree
3= Bachelor’s
or higher
F
Type of
Employment
1= In-house
2= Contract
T-test

Normative Alignment (Mean Scores)
Similar
Similar
Understand
Police
views on
backgroundsb police actionsc officers
many issuesa
value my
contributiond

13.07

3.33

3.01

3.29

3.44

12.92

3.25

2.97

3.38

3.32

0.53

0.97

0.39

1.19

1.29

12.44
13.25
2.97**

3.07
3.36
3.50***

2.87
3.02
1.47

3.24
3.38
1.69

3.26
3.49
2.62**

12.92
12.31

3.31
3.12

2.90
2.78

3.19
3.26

3.51
3.16

13.32

3.30

3.14

3.49

3.40

4.55**

2.13

4.96**

6.75***

5.43**

12.99
13.03
0.14

3.23
3.32
1.14

3.06
2.93
1.26

3.44
3.26
2.48**

3.26
3.51
2.99**

Contact with a
police officer in
the last 12
months
0= No
12.71
3.24
2.84
3.22
3.41
1= Yes
13.44
3.35
3.16
3.49
3.43
T-test
2.79**
1.30
3.46***
3.80***
0.27
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001
a. If I talked to most of the police officers, I would find they have similar views to my own
on many issues.
b. My background is similar to that of many of the police officers.
c. I can usually understand why the police are acting as they are in a particular situation.
d. Most of the police officers would value what I contribute to security.
62

Compliance. Group differences in mean scores for the dimensions of cooperation with the
police were also explored. For overall compliance with laws, no significant differences were
detected by socio-demographic characteristics or contact experience. Nonetheless, for some of the
individual items comprising Compliance, such group differences were found. For instance, the
participants reported earning two million Won or more per month refrained from making noise at
night more than those who had lower monthly income (4.83 vs. 4.68; t= 2.25; p≤ 0.05). In addition,
the married participants were shown to comply with littering laws more than the unmarried officers
(4.65 vs 4.36; t= 3.08; p≤ 0.01). Moreover, while the in-house private security officers followed
the noise rules at night to a greater degree than the contract officers (4.82 vs. 4.72; t= 2.46; p≤
0.01), the contract officers reported abiding by the traffic laws more than the in-house officers
(4.41 vs. 4.24; t= 2.04; p≤ 0.05).
Furthermore, the private security officers who had had contact experience with a police
officer during the past 12 months followed the laws in regard to trash disposal (4.65 vs. 4.49; t=
2.36; p≤ 0.05) and noise making at night (4.86 vs 4.72; t= 2.66; p≤ 0.01) more than those without
contact. However, the opposite was true when it came to following the traffic laws (4.41 vs. 4.25;
t= 2.03; p≤ 0.05).

63

Table 5.5 T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Compliance
Variables

Income
0= Less than 2
million Won
1= 2 million
Won or more
T-test
Married
0= No
1= Yes
T-test
Education
1= High
school
2= Associate
degree
3= Bachelor’s
or higher
F
Type of
Employment
1= In-house
2= Contract
T-test

Compliance (Mean Scores)
Trash &
Noise at
Traffic
litterb
nightc
lawsd

Overall

Illegal
parkinga

22.48

4.33

4.49

4.68

4.24

4.72

22.81

4.29

4.54

4.83

4.37

4.77

1.09

0.46

0.69

2.25*

1.46

0.83

22.50
22.93
1.43

4.35
4.35
0.01

4.36
4.65
3.08**

4.71
4.81
1.33

4.41
4.31
1.13

4.68
4.82
1.92

22.77

4.35

4.53

4.70

4.41

4.76

22.79

4.36

4.46

4.80

4.34

4.83

22.70

4.31

4.60

4.84

4.22

4.74

0.04

0.16

0.94

2.22

2.06

0.58

22.74
22.82
0.30

4.25
4.40
1.75

4.60
4.53
0.97

4.86
4.72
2.48**

4.24
4.41
2.04*

4.80
4.76
0.61

4.49
4.65
2.36*

4.72
4.86
2.66**

4.41
4.25
2.03*

4.78
4.78
0.09

Contact with a
police officer
in the last 12
months
0= No
22.80
4.38
1= Yes
22.86
4.31
T-test
0.23
0.84
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001
a. Parked a car illegally
b. Disposed of trash and litter illegally
c. Made noise at night
d. Sped or broke traffic laws
e. Violated copyrights

64

Copyrights
violatione

Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior. The likelihood of engaging in cooperative behavior
differed between and among the socio-demographic groups as well. In addition to the mean score
for the overall scale (26.15 vs 24.93; t= 2.31; p≤ 0.05), the respondents earning two million Won
or more monthly were found to be more likely to report a serious crime (3.94 vs. 3.76; t= 2.01; p≤
0.05) and an accident (3.97 vs. 3.72; t= 2.94= p≤ 0.01) to the police, provide the police with
information for an accident (3.77 vs. 3.52; t= 2.72; p≤ 0.01) and a crime (3.77 vs. 3.52; t= 2.72;
p≤ 0.01), and help the police to find a crime suspect (3.82 vs. 3.60; t= 2.35; p≤ 0.05).
Furthermore, the respondents with a bachelor’s or a higher degree were more likely to
engage in the overall cooperative behavior than people whose highest education was high school
(26.64 vs 24.37; p≤ 0.001). In particular, they were more likely to report a serious crime (4.07 vs.
3.59; p≤ 0.001) and an accident (4.01 vs. 3.66; p≤ 0.001), provide the police with information
about an accident (3.90 vs. 3.40; p≤ 0.001) and a crime (3.83 vs 3.43; p≤ 0.001), and help to find
a crime suspect (3.90 vs 3.58; p≤ 0.01). Additionally, the respondents with a bachelor’s or a higher
degree, when compared to the officers with an associate degree, were also more likely to report a
serious crime (4.07 vs. 3.78; p≤ 0.05) and an accident to the police (4.01 vs. 3.72; p≤ 0.05) and
share information about an accident with the police (3.90 vs. 3.60; p≤ 0.05).
In addition, the likelihood of cooperative behavior varied by the respondents’ employment
type as well as contact experience with a police officer. Specifically, the in-house security officers
reported higher likelihood of cooperative behavior overall and in each of the items comprising the
scale (reporting suspicious or dangerous activities was not statistically different). In regard to the
contact experience, the security officers who had had contact with a police officer showed a higher
mean score in the overall likelihood of cooperative behavior scale as well as in individual items.

65

Table 5.6 T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior
Variables

Overall

Income
0= Less
24.93
than 2
million Won
1= 2 million 26.15
Won or
more
T-test
2.31*
Married
0= No
1= Yes
T-test

Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior (Mean Scores)
Provide Provide Help
Report Report Report
minor
serious accident inform- inform- find
c
ation
crimea
crimeb
ation to suspect
f
about
solve
accident crimee
d

Report
activity
g

3.14

3.76

3.72

3.52

3.52

3.60

3.66

3.13

3.94

3.97

3.77

3.77

3.82

3.75

0.08

2.01*

2.94**

2.72**

2.72**

2.35*

0.96

25.44
25.30
0.26

3.09
3.11
0.13

3.83
3.80
0.35

3.87
3.77
1.07

3.73
3.56
1.65

3.67
3.58
0.92

3.63
3.75
1.13

3.62
3.73
1.15

24.37

3.03

3.59

3.66

3.40

3.43

3.58

3.68

25.12

3.10

3.78

3.72

3.60

3.63

3.64

3.66

26.64

3.19

4.07

4.01

3.90

3.83

3.90

3.76

13.11***

8.11***

13.13***

8.69***

5.60**

0.46

Education

1= High
school
2= Associate
degree
3= Bachelor’s
or higher
F

8.56*** 0.86

66

Table 5.6 (cont’d)
Type of
Employment
1= In-house 26.99
3.39
4.07
4.04
3.91
3.84
3.93
3.81
2= Contract 24.50
2.99
3.66
3.67
3.44
3.48
3.59
3.67
T-test
5.10*** 3.85*** 4.96*** 4.73*** 5.33*** 4.14*** 3.90*** 1.60
Contact with
a police
officer in the
last 12
months
0= No
24.42
3.02
3.66
3.67
3.48
3.46
3.55
3.58
1= Yes
26.80
3.26
4.02
4.01
3.81
3.84
3.95
3.91
T-test
4.70*** 2.46** 4.34*** 4.35*** 3.82*** 4.56*** 4.70*** 3.99***
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001
a. How likely will you report a minor crime you have witnessed to the police?
b. How likely will you report a serious crime you have witnessed to the police?
c. How likely will you call the police to report an accident?
d. How likely will you provide police with information about an accident?
e. How likely will you provide police with information to solve a crime?
f. How likely will you help the police to find a suspect of a crime?
g. How likely will you report suspicious or dangerous activities to the police?
Empowerment. With regard to empowering the police in performing their duties, the
married participants were more likely than the unmarried respondents to support granting authority
to the police. For the education groups, when compared to those with an associate degree, the
respondents with a bachelor’s or a higher degree expressed greater support for the police’s
exercising the right to stop and question people on the streets (3.65 vs 3.34; p≤ 0.05) and the power
to decide the areas to provide their services with (3.81 vs. 3.53; p≤ 0.05).

67

Table 5.7 T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Empowerment of the Police
Variables

Empowerment (Mean Scores)
Right to
Power to
The police Power to
stop and
decide
decide
do
b
question
areas
how to
whatever
deal with
they think
c
crime
is needed d

Police,
will
effectively
control
crimee

3.55

3.68

3.73

3.55

3.67

3.57

3.74

3.73

3.37

3.62

0.25

0.78

0.03

1.72

0.52

17.22
18.47
3.27***

3.38
3.65
2.71**

3.58
3.80
2.61**

3.57
3.85
3.30***

3.21
3.49
2.28*

3.47
3.68
1.94*

18.33

3.56

3.71

3.83

3.50

3.72

17.32

3.34

3.53

3.62

3.37

3.46

18.03

3.65

3.81

3.71

3.32

3.56

2.80

3.60*

3.70*

2.88

1.23

2.86

17.87
18.22
0.98

3.55
3.56
0.19

3.73
3.72
0.06

3.68
3.80
1.53

3.37
3.50
0.84

3.55
3.67
1.34

Overall

Income
0= Less than
18.17
2 million Won
1= 2 million
18.03
Won or more
T-test
0.41
Married
0= No
1= Yes
T-test
Education
1= High
school
2= Associate
degree
3= Bachelor’s
or higher
F
Type of
Employment
1= In-house
2= Contract
T-test

68

Table 5.7 (cont’d)
Contact with a
police officer
in the last 12
months
0= No
17.98
3.50
3.67
3.74
3.43
3.64
1= Yes
18.19
3.63
3.79
3.76
3.40
3.61
T-test
0.61
1.52
1.69
0.23
0.31
0.32
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001
a. The police should have the right to stop and question people on the street.
b. The police should have the power to decide which areas of the city should receive the most
police protection.
c. Because of their training and experience, the police are best able to decide how to deal with
crime in neighborhood.
d. The police should have the power to do whatever they think is needed to fight crime.
e. If we give enough power to the police, they will be able to effectively control crime.
Identification with Security Profession. When it came to identifying with the security
profession, the married officers had higher mean scores than the unmarried participants for the
overall scale (18.00 vs. 16.39; t= 4.35; p≤ 0.001) as well as for the individual items. Moreover, the
individuals who reported high school as their highest level of education displayed greater
identification with their profession compared to the officers with an associate degree (18.12 vs
16.74; p≤ 0.01).
Particularly, officers reporting high school as their education perceived the praise for other
security agents as their own compliment (3.88 vs. 3.60; p≤ 0.01), saw the things that their
organizations supported as important (3.73 vs. 3.34; p≤ 0.001), and linked their work to self-image
(3.67 vs. 3.35; p≤ 0.01) to a greater extent than the officers with an associate degree. Furthermore,
the officers who reported high school as their education perceived the things that their
organizations stood for more important than the officers with a bachelor’s or a more advanced
degree (3.73 vs. 3.50; p≤ 0.001).

69

In addition, contract officers identified with their profession more than their in-house
counterparts (17.97 vs. 17.16; t= 2.16; p≤ 0.05), especially with regard to feeling positive about
other officers’ achievement and praise (3.86 vs. 3.68; t= 2.22; p≤ 0.05) and supporting what their
organizations stood for (3.69 vs. 3.41; t= 3.16; p≤ 0.01). Lastly, security officers with a contact
experience with a police officer exhibited a higher level of pride in contributing to the safety of
society than those without contact experience (3.70 vs. 3.53; t= 2.07; p≤ 0.05).
Table 5.8 T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Identification with Security Profession
Variables
Overall

Identification with Security Profession (Mean Scores)
Proud to
Feels like
What my
SelfPeople
a
d
organization
contribute personal
image
respect
c
compliment stands for
what I doe
b

Income
0= Less than
2 million
Won
1= 2 million
Won or more
T-test
Married
0= No
1= Yes
T-test
Education
1= High
school
2= Associate
degree
3=
Bachelor’s or
higher
F
Type of
Employment
1= In-house
2= Contract
T-test

17.53

3.57

3.77

3.59

3.52

3.09

17.25

3.58

3.71

3.45

3.50

3.02

0.76

0.14

0.70

1.66

0.18

0.68

16.39
18.00
4.35***

3.41
3.66
2.82**

3.57
3.83
2.92**

3.29
3.67
4.25***

3.25
3.65
4.29***

2.87
3.19
3.07**

18.12

3.63

3.88

3.73

3.67

3.21

16.74

3.50

3.60

3.34

3.35

2.96

17.31

3.58

3.71

3.50

3.47

3.05

5.34**

0.76

4.51**

7.42***

4.59**

2.38

17.16
17.97
2.16*

3.55
3.65
1.14

3.68
3.86
2.22*

3.41
3.69
3.16**

3.48
3.60
1.25

3.03
3.17
1.34

70

Table 5.8 (cont’d)
Contact with
a police
officer in the
last 12
months
0= No
17.50
3.53
3.71
3.58
3.55
3.15
1= Yes
17.69
3.70
3.85
3.55
3.53
3.05
T-test
0.50
2.07*
1.79
0.25
0.17
0.97
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001
a. I am proud to contribute to the safety of society.
b. When someone praises the achievements of other security agents, it feels like a personal
compliment.
c. The things that my organization stands for are important to me.
d. Being a part of the security network is important to the way that I think of myself as a
person.
e. People respect what I contribute to the security of community.
Extra-role behavior. In terms of engaging in extra-role behavior, the married participants
were involved in the related activities more than the unmarried respondents (5.37 vs. 4.69; t= 2.42;
p≤ 0.05), especially by talking with neighbors about security issues in the community (1.99 vs.
1.62; t= 3.38; p≤ 0.001). Furthermore, the contract officers reported talking with their neighbors
about their communities’ security problems more frequently than the in-house officers (1.97 vs.
1.76; t= 2.07; p≤ 0.05).

71

Table 5.9 T-tests and One-Way ANOVA for Extra-role behavior
Variables

Extra-role behavior (Mean Scores)
Attend meetings Communicate
to discuss
your views about
security
community
problemsa
security issuesb

Talk with your
neighbors about
security
problemsc

5.25

1.66

1.64

1.95

4.97

1.64

1.57

1.76

1.08

0.26

0.83

1.73

4.69
5.37
2.42*

1.55
1.75
1.88

1.53
1.64
1.10

1.62
1.99
3.38***

5.40
4.81

1.70
1.57

1.69
1.51

2.01
1.72

5.16

1.76

1.60

1.80

1.64

1.03

1.25

3.10*

5.03
5.33
1.13

1.69
1.71
0.16

1.58
1.65
0.74

1.76
1.97
2.07*

Overall

Income
0= Less than 2
million Won
1= 2 million
Won or more
T-test
Married
0= No
1= Yes
T-test
Education
1= High school
2= Associate
degree
3= Bachelor’s or
higher
F
Type of
Employment
1= In-house
2= Contract
T-test

Contact with a
police officer in
the last 12
months
0= No
5.23
1.70
1.62
1.91
1= Yes
5.16
1.68
1.64
1.84
T-test
0.24
0.21
0.29
0.68
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001
a. How often do you attend meetings to discuss security problems in community?
b. How often do you communicate your views about community security issues to elected
officials?
c. How often do you talk with your neighbors about security problems in your community?
72

(2) Bivariate correlation analysis
After the independent-sample t-tests and ANOVA, a zero-order correlation analysis was
conducted to investigate the bivariate relationships between any two variables to be included in
the OLS models and detect possible multicollinearity issues between independent variables.
Possible multicollinearity issues were first examined by reviewing the correlation coefficients. To
illustrate, the coefficients equal to or greater than 0.70 between two independent variables were
noted as they could indicate the presence of multicollinearity (Ratner, 2013).
The correlation coefficients between Police Performance and Distributive Justice (r= 0.63;
p≤ 0.001) and Procedural Justice (r= 0.68; p≤ 0.001) as well as between Distributive Justice and
Procedural Justice (r= 0.75; p≤ 0.001) indicated that these independent variables could be
correlated beyond what was conventionally accepted. Nonetheless, as pointed out by Gujarati
(2003), the correlation coefficient is not the sole determinant of a multicollinearity issue because
such problem could exist even if the coefficient is low.
Therefore, additional analyses were carried out to confirm whether or not multicollinearity
actually existed between the independent variables. As shown in the diagnostics presented in Table
5.11, the values of VIF and Tolerance revealed no signs of multicollinearity between the
independent variables. This was the case even when conservative cutoff points were applied (i.e.
VIF≥ 4; Tolerance≤ 0.25).
The findings of the bivariate correlation analysis suggested that the variables representing
the dimensions of legitimacy (Obligation to Obey, Trust, and Normative Alignment) were mostly
positively related to the dependent variables (i.e. Obligation to Obey, Likelihood of Cooperative
Behavior, Empowerment, Identification with Security Profession, and Extra-Role Behavior).
Particularly, Trust and all dimensions of cooperation were found to be positively correlated.

73

The bivariate relationships between the instrumental (Risk of Sanction, Police
Performance, and Distributive Justice) and each of the legitimacy variables showed that they were
mostly positively correlated. Specifically, Risk of Sanction for illegitimate activities had a positive
correlation with Trust (r= 0.21; p≤ 0.001) and Normative Alignment (r= 0.16; p≤ 0.001).
Moreover, both Police Performance and Distributive Justice displayed a positive correlation with
Obligation to Obey (r= 0.44; p≤ 0.001 and r= 0.30; p≤ 0.001, respectively), Trust (r= 0.71; p≤
0.001 and r= 0.68; p≤ 0.001, respectively), and Normative Alignment (r= 0.50; p≤ 0.001 and r=
0.51; p≤ 0.001, respectively).
Furthermore, having contact with a police officer and the likelihood of cooperative
behavior (r= 0.23; p≤ 0.001) as well as being male and engagement in Extra-Role Behavior (r=
0.15; p≤ 0.01) were positively correlated. Age was shown to have varying correlations with the
dependent variables. Age and Empowerment (r= 0.19; p≤ 0.001), Identification with Security
Profession (r= 0.28; p≤ 0.001), and engagement in Extra-Role Behavior (r= 0.16; p≤ 0.001) were
positively correlated while the correlation between age and the Likelihood of Cooperative
Behavior was negative (r= -0.16; p≤ 0.001).
Additionally, being married was positively correlated with Empowerment of the police (r=
0.17; p≤ 0.001) and Identification with Security Profession (r= 0.21; p≤ 0.001). Income (r= 0.12;
p≤ 0.05) and education (r= 0.20; p≤ 0.001) were positively correlated with Likelihood of
Cooperative Behavior, and education and Identification with Security Profession were negatively
correlated (r= -0.11; p≤ 0.05).

74

Table 5.10 Bivariate Correlation Matrix for Individual Variables
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

1. Compliance

1.00

2. CoopBeh

.14**

1.00

3. Empower

.10*

.34***

1.00

4. Identification

.12**

.37***

.47***

1.00

5. Extra-role

-.16***

.07

.03

.24***

1.00

6. ObligToObey

.14**

.27***

.38***

.30***

.06

1.00

7. Trust

.09*

.25***

.48***

.51***

.13**

.43***

1.00

8. NormAlign.

.01

.30***

.47***

.47***

.22***

.34***

.64***

1.00

9. SancRisk

.06

.06

.09*

.20***

.08

.04

.21***

.16***

1.00

10. PolPerform

.14**

.26***

.54***

.49***

.09

.44***

.71***

.50***

.20***

1.00

11. DisJust

.15**

.25***

.45***

.46***

.11*

.30***

.68***

.51***

.21***

.63***

1.00

12. ProJust

.11*

.33***

.50***

.53***

.17***

.39***

.75***

.60***

.22***

.68***

.75***

1.00

13. Contact

.01

.23***

.03

.03

-.01

.14**

.00

.14**

-.15***

.02

-.04

-.01

14. Male

-.03

-.05

-.07

-.04

.15**

.03

.02

-.01

.02

.07

-.01

-.03

15. Age

.09

-.16***

.19***

.28***

.16***

.16***

.30***

.13**

.21***

.35***

.22***

.26***

16. Years of exp.

.09

-.04

.07

-.01

-.04

.00

-.03

-.02

-.07

-.01

-.05

-.05

17. Married

.07

-.01

.17***

.21***

.12

.17***

.19***

.15**

.14**

.20***

.12*

.16***

18. Income

.06

.12*

-.02

-.04

-.06

.05

-.09

-.03

-.11*

-.09

-.12*

-.12*

19. Education

-.01

.20***

-.04

-.11*

-.04

-.01

-.10*

.06

-.16***

-.09

-.14**

-.12*

75

Table 5.10 (cont’d)
13

14

15

16

17

18

13. Contact

1.00

14. Male

-.03

1.00

15. Age

-.12**

.26***

1.00

16. Years of exp.

.09*

-.09*

-.06

1.00

17. Married

.04

.21***

.59***

.10*

1.00

18. Income

.18***

-.03

-.49***

.44***

-.18***

1.00

19. Education

.23***

-.17***

-.52***

.14**

-.27***

.45***

19

1.00

*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001
Note: 1= Compliance; 2= Likelihood of cooperative behavior; 3= Empowerment of the police; 4= Identification with security
profession; 5= Extra-role behavior; 6= Obligation to obey; 7= Trust; 8= Normative alignment; 9= Risk of sanction; 10= Police
performance; 11= Distributive justice; 12= Procedural justice; 13= Contact experience; 14= Male= 15= Age; 16= Years of work
experience; 17= Married; 18= Monthly income; 19= Highest level of education.

76

Table 5.11 Multicollinearity Diagnostics
Variables
Socio-demographic characteristics
Gender
Age
Years of experience
Monthly income
Marital status
Education

VIF

Tolerance

1.15
2.36
1.44
1.98
1.59
1.54

0.87
0.42
0.70
0.50
0.63
0.65

Contact experience
Contact with a police officer

1.25

0.80

Instrumental & Normative perspectives
Perceived risk of sanction
Police performance
Distributive justice
Procedural justice

1.15
2.73
2.65
3.48

0.87
0.37
0.38
0.29

Legitimacy
Obligation to obey
Trust
Normative alignment

1.44
3.44
2.03

0.70
0.29
0.49

3. Multivariate Analysis
After examining the bivariate relationships between variables, multivariate analyses were
conducted to investigate how other variables might affect the bivariate relationships and determine
the factors that influenced the respondents’ attitudes toward and actual engagement in cooperation
with the police more conclusively. OLS was chosen as the main analytic strategy considering the
characteristics of the dependent variables, including their measurement as interval variables.
First, each dimension of police legitimacy was predicted by running different models,
including the overall sample, and the subgroup analyses between contract and in-house officers as
well as between those with and without contact experience with a police officer during the past 12
months.
77

(1) Predictors of police legitimacy
Table 5.12a Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Obligation to Obey

Variables

SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
experience
Monthly
income
Married
Education
Contact
Contact
experience

All Private Security
Officers (n= 322)
b
SE
β

Obligation to Obey
Contract Officers
(n= 170)
b
SE
β

In-House Officers
(n= 142)
b
SE
β

-.20
.01
-.02

.36
.01
.02

-.03
.07
-.06

-.04
.00
.02

.59
.01
.03

-.01
.01
.05

-.19
.06
-.12

.55
.05
.07

-.03
.16
-.24

.66**

.25

.18

.79*

.33

.21

.47

.45

.09

.33
-.06

.24
.13

.08
-.03

.46
-.04

.43
.15

.12
-.02

.33
.05

.34
.25

.08
.02

.53**

.20

.14

.33

.24

.10

.66

.34

.16

-.05

.00

.03

-.01

-.04

.04

-.08

.35

.06

.45

.18*

.08

.26

-.09

.31**
*
-.07

.06

-.13

-.05

.07

-.08

.22

.05

.04

.12

.12*

.05

.30

Attitudinal
Risk of
-.02
.02
sanction
Police
.24*** .05
performance
Distributive
-.05
.04
justice
Procedural
.09** .03
justice
R2/Adjusted
.28/.26
2
R
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.30/.25

.31/.26

As shown in Table 5.12a, monthly income, contact experience with a police officer, and
perceived police performance and procedural justice were found to predict the participants’
attitudes toward obligation to obey authorities. Particularly, the security officers that reported
earning 200 million or more Won per month were more likely to feel the obligation to obey
authorities compared to those who were earning less income (b= 0.66; p≤ 0.01). Moreover, the
78

respondents with a contact experience with a police officer during the past 12 months exhibited
higher degree of obligation to obey than those without any contact experience (b= 0.53; p≤ 0.01).
Furthermore, perceived police performance (b= 0.24; (b=0.66; p≤ 0.001) and procedural justice
(b= 0.09; p≤ 0.01) were positively related to Obligation to Obey.
Table 5.12b Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Obligation to Obey

Variables
b
SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

Obligation to Obey
No Contact (n= 185)
Had Contact (n= 137)
SE
β
B
SE
β

.09
.01
-.03

.51
.01
.03

.01
.08
-.08

-.49
.01
.00

.55
.01
.04

-.07
.05
.01

.75*
.28
-.04

.33
.35
.17

.20
.07
-.02

.48
.44
-.07

.42
.34
.21

.13
.11
-.03

-.05
.30

-.03
.28***

.03
.08

-.06
.42

.05

-.10

.06

-.20

.15

.09*
.29/.23

.04

.26

Attitudinal
Risk of Sanction
-.02
.03
Police
.21**
.07
Performance
Distributive
.03
.07
Justice
Procedural Justice .06
.05
2
2
R /Adjusted R
.25/.21
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

Additionally, different variables were found to predict Obligation to Obey between
contract and in-house officers. For the contract officers, monthly income (b= 0.79; p≤ 0.05) and
police performance (b= 0.31; p≤ 0.001) were the significant correlates while police performance
(b= 0.18; p≤ 0.05) and procedural justice (b= 0.12; p≤ 0.05) predicted the outcome variable among
the in-house officers.

79

Moreover, findings showed that monthly income (b= 0.75; p≤ 0.05) and police
performance (b= 0.21; p≤ 0.01) were positive correlates of Obligation to Obey for the participants
without any contact with a police officer for the past twelve months. For the comparison group
with such contact, police performance (b= 0.28; p≤ 0.001) and procedural justice (b= 0.09; p≤
0.05) were positively related to the dependent variable. Furthermore, using the equation from
Paternoster, Brame, Mazerolle, and Piquero (1998) 6 , the difference between the regression
coefficients was investigated. The results suggested that the effects of police performance between
contract and in-house officers (z= 1.30) and between those with or without contact with a police
officer (z= -0.64) did not vary statistically.

𝑍=

𝑏1 − 𝑏2
√𝑆𝐸𝑏1 2 + 𝑆𝐸𝑏2 2

When trust in the police was regressed on the socio-demographic characteristics, contact
experience, and attitudinal variables of the respondents (Table 5.13), the perceptions of police
performance (b= 0.37; p≤ 0.001), distributive justice (b= 0.11; p≤ 0.05), and procedural justice (b=
0.28; p≤ 0.001) were found to be the significant predictors. In other words, the more the
participants thought highly of police performance and believed that the police provided their
services equally in a procedurally fair manner, the degree of trust increased.
The results of the subgroup analyses based on type of employment suggested that age (b=
0.04; p≤ 0.05), police performance (b= 0.28; p≤ 0.001), distributive justice (b= 0.17; p≤ 0.01), and
procedural justice (b= 0.14; p≤ 0.01) were significantly related to the contract officers’ trust while

6

b= unstandardized regression coefficient; SE= Standard Error
80

being married (b= 0.94; p≤ 0.01), police performance (b= 0.38; p≤ 0.001), and procedural justice
(b= 0.36; p≤ 0.001) were significant predictors among the in-house officers.
In addition, the subgroup analysis by contact experience showed that the two groups had
common attitudinal variables predicting trust in the police. In both groups, Police Performance and
the dependent variable were positively related (b= 0.34; p≤ 0.001 and b= 0.41; p≤ 0.001). Positive
association between Procedural Justice and Trust were also shown for both groups (b= 0.24; p≤
0.001 and b= 0.30; p≤ 0.001). Nevertheless, the education variable was positively related to Trust
only among those with no contact experience with a police officer (b= 0.42; p≤ 0.05).
Further analyses carried out to investigate the difference between regression coefficients
showed that the influence of Procedural Justice on Trust was greater for the in-house officers
compared to their contract counterparts (z= -3.14). However, no such distinct influence was
detected for the other common predictors.

Table 5.13a Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Trust

Variables

SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education
Contact
Contact
Experience

All Private Security
Officers (n= 322)
b
SE
β

Trust
Contract Officers
(n= 170)
B
SE
β

In-House Officers
(n= 142)
b
SE
β

.02
.01
-.03

.41
.01
.03

.00
.05
-.05

.55
.04*
.00

.72
.02
.03

.05
.24
.01

.07
-.04
-.08

.53
.05
.07

.01
-.05
-.09

.19
.28
.08

.28
.27
.14

.03
.04
.02

.16
-.60
.07

.40
.52
.18

.03
-.11
.02

.63
.94**
.18

.43
.33
.24

.07
.13
.03

-.01

.22

.00

.34

.29

.07

-.27

.33

-.04

81

Table 5.13a (cont’d)
Attitudinal
Risk of Sanction
.02
.03
Police
.37*** .06
Performance
Distributive Justice .11*
.05
Procedural Justice .28*** .04
R2/Adjusted R2
.67/.65
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.03
.32

.05
.03
.28*** .08

.09
.27

.06
.04
.38*** .08

.06
.31

.12
.43

.17** .07
.14** .05
.54/.51

.21
.24

.07
.07
.07
.36*** .05
.54
.79/.77

Table 5.13b Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Trust
Trust
Variables
B
SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

No Contact (n= 185)
SE
Β

b

Had Contact (n= 137)
SE
β

.88
.01
-.02

.55
.01
.03

.08
.06
-.03

-.87
.00
-.05

.62
.02
.05

-.07
.01
-.06

.08
.35
.42*

.35
.37
.18

.01
.06
.13

.21
.43
-.37

.47
.38
.24

.03
.06
-.09

.07
.33

.00
.41***

.04
.09

.00
.33

.08

.14*

.06

.15

.39

.30***

.05

.45

Attitudinal
Risk of Sanction .05
.04
Police
.34***
.07
Performance
Distributive
.08
.08
Justice
Procedural
.24***
.05
Justice
R2/Adjusted R2
.62/.60
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.75/.73

In regard to participants’ normative alignment with the police and police officers,
educational level (b= 0.37; p≤ 0.05), contact experience (b= 0.65; p≤ 0.01), and perceived police
performance (b= 0.17; p≤ 0.01) and procedural justice (b= 0.21; p≤ 0.001) were shown to be the
significant correlates. The participants who received higher education, had contact experience, and

82

perceived the police performed their duties well and in a procedurally just way exhibited a greater
level of normative alignment with their public counterparts.
When analyzing by type of employment, Education only predicted Normative Alignment
among the contract officers (b= 0.46; p≤ 0.05). Moreover, Contact Experience (b= 1.37; p≤ 0.001)
and Police Performance (b= 0.26; p≤ 0.01) were significantly related to Normative Alignment only
among the in-house group. Furthermore, the comparison by contact with a police officer showed
that perceived police performance was a significant correlate of the normative alignment among
those without contact experience (b= 0.17; p≤ 0.05), whereas Distributive Justice was significantly
related to the outcome variable in the group with contact experience (b= 0.20; p≤ 0.01).
Furthermore, an examination into the difference between the coefficients of Procedural Justice
revealed that there was no statistically distinct variance between contract and in-house officers (z=
0.50) or between those with or without contact with a police officer (z= 0.75).
Table 5.14a Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Moral Alignment

Variables

SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education
Contact
Contact
Experience

All Private Security
Officers (n= 322)
b
SE
β

Normative Alignment
Contract Officers
(n= 170)
B
SE
β

In-House Officers
(n= 142)
b
SE
β

.19
-.01
-.03

.45
.01
.03

.02
-.05
-.05

.00
.00
.00

.83
.02
.04

.00
-.02
.00

.04
.07
-.12

.61
.06
.08

.00
.13
-.17

-.10
.47
.37*

.31
.29
.16

-.02
.08
.13

.13
.82
.46*

.46
.60
.21

.02
.15
.16

-.57
.25
.08

.50
.38
.28

-.08
.04
.02

.65**

.24

.12

-.05

.34

-.01

1.37
***

.38

.22

83

Table 5.14a (cont’d)
Attitudinal
Risk of Sanction
Police
Performance
Distributive
Justice
Procedural Justice

.04
.17**

.03
.06

.06
.18

.02
.09

.04
.09

.04
.09

.08
.26**

.05
.09

.11
.26

.09

.05

.12

.02

.08

.02

.08

.08

.09

.21
.04
***
R2/Adjusted R2
.44/.43
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.39

.25
.06
***
.32/.28

.44

.21
***

.05

.39

.59/.56

Table 5.14b Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Normative Alignment

Variables
b
Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

Normative Alignment
No Contact (n= 185)
Had Contact (n= 137)
SE
Β
b
SE
β

.59
.00
-.02
-.20
.35
.44*

Attitudinal
Risk of Sanction
.05
Police Performance .17*
Distributive Justice -.07
Procedural Justice
.25***
2
2
R /Adjusted R
.41/.37
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.55
.01
.03
.36
.38
.18

.07
-.02
-.05
-.04
.07
.17

-.51
-.02
-.05
-.24
.62
.31

.78
.02
.06
.59
.48
.30

-.04
-.08
-.07
-.04
.09
.09

.04
.07
.08
.05
.49/.45

.09
.20
-.09
.50

.06
.17
.20**
.19**

.05
.11
.08
.06

.08
.16
.25
.34

(2) Predictors of cooperation with the police
As discussed, prior studies suggest that police legitimacy is an antecedent of cooperative
intention and behavior. Therefore, after exploring the predictors of police legitimacy, main
analyses were conducted to investigate the factors that affect cooperation with the police. The
dimensions of police legitimacy (i.e. Obligation to Obey, Trust, and Normative Alignment), which
had been predicted in the previous studies as the dependent variables, were included as
84

independent variables along with the participants’ socio-demographic characteristics and contact
experience.
Table 5.15a Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Compliance

Variables

SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

All Private Security
Officers (n= 319)
b
SE
β

Compliance
Contract Officers
(n= 167)
b
SE
β

In-House Officers
(n= 142)
b
SE
β

-.67
.01
.03

.64
.01
.04

-.06
.06
.05

-1.36
-.01
.01

1.35
.03
.06

-.09
-.05
.02

-.38
.06
-.01

.75
.07
.09

-.04
.13
-.01

.36
-.15
-.06

.45
.42
.22

.06
-.03
-.02

.13
.80
-.14

.76
.98
.34

.02
.11
-.03

.17
-.43
.11

.64
.48
.34

.03
-.09
.03

.35

.07

.99

.54

.14

-.42

.50

-.08

.13
.12
-.17

.21
.25
-.18

.17
.14
.13

.11
.19
-.13

.23
.05
-.15

.12
.10
.12

.19
.07
-.19

Contact
Contact Experience .38

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey .20*
.10
Trust
.11
.08
Normative
-.18* .08
Alignment
R2/Adjusted R2
.05/.02
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.08/.02

85

.07/.00

Table 5.15b Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Compliance
Compliance
Variables
b
Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

-.26
-.02
.05
.40
1.05
.14

No Contact (n= 182)
SE
β
1.01
.02
.06
.66
.69
.33

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey .32*
.15
Trust
.07
.12
Normative
-.15
.14
Alignment
R2/Adjusted R2
.07/.02
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

b

Had Contact (n= 137)
SE
β

-.02
-.08
.07
.06
.16
.04

-1.16
.03
-.02
.23
-1.16**
-.03

.75
.02
.06
.56
.46
.28

-.14
.21
-.03
.05
-.24
-.01

.18
.06
-.10

.07
.13
-.19*

.12
.08
.09

.06
.21
-.26

.13/.07

Compliance was the first outcome variable regressed on the aforementioned variables. The
results in Table 5.15a revealed that only a small amount of variance was explained by the
independent variables (adjusted R2= 0.02). The model that included all participants showed that
Obligation to Obey (b= 0.20; p≤ 0.05) and Normative Alignment (b= -0.18; p≤ 0.05) were the
significant predictors. Those who held a higher degree of obligation to obey authorities were more
likely to comply with laws and refrain from engaging in illegitimate activities. However, a negative
relationship between Normative Alignment and Compliance indicated that the security officers
exhibiting a higher Normative Alignment were less likely to comply with laws.
Further assessment by type of employment showed that there were no significant correlates
of Compliance when the sample was divided into contract and in-house officers. The subgroup
analysis by contact experience revealed that there was a notable difference in the variance
explained by the independent variables between the two groups. Although the amount of variance
was not substantial for either group, the groups with contact had a higher coefficient of
86

determination (R2= 0.07) than the comparison group (R2= 0.02). The findings also indicated that
Married (b= -1.16; p≤ 0.01) was a significant predictor for the participants with contact experience
with a police officer. Normative Alignment (b= -0.19; p≤ 0.05) was the other variable that was
significant only in the group with contact experience. Moreover, Obligation to Obey (b= 0.32; p≤
0.05) and Compliance were positively associated only among the officers without contact.
The next dependent variable was the likelihood that respondents would engage in
cooperative behavior with the police. The results from the full model suggested that Age (b= 0.08; p≤ 0.001), Contact Experience (b= 1.11; p≤ 0.05), Obligation to Obey (b= 0.65; p≤ 0.001),
and Trust (b= 0.25; p≤ 0.05) were the significant correlates of Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior.
To illustrate, the respondents who were younger had had encountered a police officer, and
exhibited higher degrees of Obligation to Obey and Trust were more likely to engage in
cooperative behavior.
Further analyses by type of employment indicated that Age (b= -0.12; p≤ 0.01) only
predicted the contract officer’s likelihood of cooperative behavior, and the contact experience (b=
2.20; p≤ 0.05) was found to be a significant predictor for the in-house, but not for the contract
officers. Obligation to Obey and Trust were positively related to Likelihood of Cooperative
Behavior for both contract and in-house officers.
Additionally, the correlates of Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior varied between the
contact groups. Particularly, Age (b= -0.10; p≤ 0.01) and Normative Alignment (b= 0.52; p≤ 0.01)
were related to the outcome variable among the participants with no contact experience. On the
other hand, years of experience in the field (b= -0.24; p≤ 0.05) and education level (b= 1.12; p≤
0.05) were found to be significant for the group with contact experience, demonstrating that
individuals with less experience and a higher education level were more likely to cooperate with

87

the police. When the coefficients of the common predictors were assessed, findings indicated that
no such statistical differences existed.
Table 5.16a Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Likelihood of
Cooperative Behavior

Variables

SocioDemographic
Male
Age

Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education
Contact
Contact
Experience

Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior
All Private Security
Contract Officers
In-House Officers
Officers (n= 321)
(n= 169)
(n= 142)
b
SE
β
b
SE
β
b
SE
β

.23
.08**
*
-.09

1.01
.02

.01
-.26

.39
.12**

1.88
.04

.02
-.42

.24
.09

1.34
.13

.01
.09

.07

-.08

-.12

.09

-.11

-.13

.17

-.10

-.09
.88
.60

.70
.67
.35

-.01
.08
.10

-.93
2.16
.19

1.06
1.38
.48

-.08
.20
.03

-.92
-.20
.38

1.13
.84
.60

-.07
-.02
.05

1.11*

.55

.11

-.04

.75

.00

2.20*

.89

.21

.24

.47*

.24

.16

.22

.29

.15
.11

.48*
.23

.20
.18

.25
.11

.71**
*
.37*
-.04

.17
.21

.26
-.02

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey .65** .16
*
Trust
.25*
.12
Normative
.22
.13
Alignment
R2/Adjusted R2
.25/.23
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.17/.11

88

.32/.27

Table 5.16b Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior

Variables
b
Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

1.20
-.10**
-.03
-1.41
.41
.17

Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior
No Contact (n= 184)
Had Contact (n= 137)
SE
β
b
SE
β
1.39
.03
.08
.91
.95
.46

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey .63**
.21
Trust & Confidence .23
.17
Normative
.52**
.19
Alignment
R2/Adjusted R2
.23/.19
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.06
-.34
-.03
-.14
.04
.03

-.93
-.06
-.24*
1.87
1.15
1.12*

1.52
.04
.12
1.14
.93
.57

-.05
-.16
-.19
.19
.11
.19

.23
.13
.23

.62**
.32
-.06

.24
.17
.18

.23
.23
-.03

.28/.23

Empowerment of police officers was another dimension of cooperation. According to the
full model, male participants (b= -1.39; p≤ 0.05) were less likely to support empowerment of police
officers. In addition, Obligation to Obey (b= 0.31; p≤ 0.01), Trust (b= 0.20; p≤ 0.01), and
Normative Alignment (b= 0.39; p≤ 0.001) were positively related to Empowerment. Therefore,
the respondents who felt greater obligation to obey authorities, held higher levels of trust in the
police, and exhibited higher degree of normative alignment were more likely to support
empowerment of the police.
The results of subgroup analyses showed Age (b= 0.05; p≤ 0.05), Education (b= -0.57; p≤
0.05), Contact Experience (b= -0.95; p≤ 0.05), and Normative Alignment (b= 0.43; p≤ 0.001)
explained the contract officers’ support of police empowerment, whereas Years of Experience (b=
0.26; p≤ 0.05), Obligation to Obey (b= 0.53; p≤ 0.001), and Trust (b= 0.32; p≤ 0.01) were
positively related to the in-house officers’ attitude toward Empowerment.

89

Furthermore, Male (b= -1.66; p≤ 0.05) and Age (b= 0.05; p≤ 0.01) were related to the
dependent variable within the “No Contact” group while Obligation to Obey (b= 0.56; p≤ 0.001)
and Trust (b= 0.38; p≤ 0.001) were significant correlates of the group with contact experience. In
addition, the impact of Normative Alignment (i.e. b= 0.43; p≤ 0.001 vs. b= 0.28; p≤ 0.05), the
common predictor for both groups, was not shown to vary between the two groups (z= 0.94).
Table 5.17a Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Empowerment

Variables

SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education
Contact
Contact
experience

All Private Security
Officers (n= 322)
b
SE
β

-1.39*

Empowerment
Contract Officers
(n= 170)
b
SE
β

In-House Officers
(n= 142)
b
SE
β

.02
.03

.63
.01
.04

-.11
.11
.04

-2.60
.05*
-.09

1.04
.02
.05

-.19
.26
-.13

-.42
.00
.26*

.89
.08
.11

-.03
.01
.28

.29
.19
-.02

.43
.41
.22

.04
.03
-.01

.90
-.60
-.57*

.58
.75
.26

.14
-.09
-.16

-.86
-.17
.09

.76
.57
.40

-.09
-.02
.02

-.18

.34

-.03

-.95*

.41

-.15

.72

.60

.09

.17

.16

.13

.09

.53***

.14

.29

.18
.30

.14

.11
.43*** .10

.12
.35

.32**
.21

.12
.14

.30
.16

Legitimacy
Obligation to
.31** .10
Obey
Trust
.20** .07
Normative
.39*** .08
Alignment
R2/Adjusted R2
.34/.32
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.31/.27

90

.46/.42

Table 5.17b Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Empowerment
Empowerment
Variables
b
Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

-1.66*
.05**
.00
.44
-.19
-.39

No Contact (n= 185)
SE
β
.77
.02
.05
.51
.53
.25

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey .13
.11
Trust
.04
.09
Normative
.43***
.11
Alignment
R2/Adjusted R2
.29/.25
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

b

Had Contact (n= 137)
SE
β

-.15
.32
.00
.08
-.03
-.11

-.74
-.01
.07
.15
.05
.38

1.02
.03
.08
.77
.63
.38

-.05
-.03
.07
.02
.01
.08

.08
.04
.33

.56***
.38***
.28*

.16
.11
.12

.26
.34
.22

.47/.44

For Identification with Security Profession, Male (b= -1.58; p≤ 0.05), Trust (b= 0.31; p≤
0.001), and Normative Alignment (b= 0.37; p≤ 0.001) were related to the outcome variable in the
full model. In other words, females and those expressing greater trust in and normative alignment
with the police were more likely to identify with their profession.
In addition, gender (Male; b= -2.11; p≤ 0.05), marital status (Married; b= 1.80; p≤ 0.05),
contact with a police officer (b= -0.97; p≤ 0.05), Obligation to Obey (b= 0.36; p≤ 0.01), and
Normative Alignment (b= 0.35; p≤ 0.001) were significantly related to the dependent variable
among the contract officers. On the other hand, Trust (b= 0.49; p≤ 0.001) was the sole predictor
for the in-house officers.
When analyzing the sample by contact experience, Obligation to Obey (b= 0.29; p≤ 0.01)
predicted Identification with Security Profession for the participants with no contact experience
while income (b= 2.36; p≤ 0.01) and Trust (b= 0.45; p≤ 0.01) were significant correlates for the
individuals with contact experience. Furthermore, Normative Alignment was the common
91

significant variable for both groups (b= 0.37; p≤ 0.001 and b= 0.33; p≤ 0.05), but there were no
statistical differences in the coefficients (z= 0.22).
Table 5.18a Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Identification with
Security Profession

Variables

SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly
Income
Married
Education
Contact
Contact
Experience

Identification with Security Profession
All Private Security
Contract Officers
In-House Officers
Officers (n= 322)
(n= 170)
(n= 142)
b
SE
β
b
SE
β
b
SE
β

-1.58*
.02
.01

.67
.02
.05

-.12
.09
.01

-2.11*
-.01
-.02

1.05
.02
.05

-.15
-.06
-.03

-1.65
.14
-.01

1.06
.10
.13

-.11
.17
-.01

.40

.47

.06

-.61

.59

-.09

.22

.89

.02

.45
-.11

.44
.23

.06
-.03

1.80*
-.17

.76
.27

.26
-.04

-.31
-.26

.67
.47

-.04
-.04

-.51

.36

-.07

-.97*

.42

-.15

.05

.70

.01

.36**

.13

.19

.06

.17

.03

.20

.11
.10

.16
.27

.49***

.14
.16

.42
.18

Legitimacy
Obligation to .19
.10
.10
Obey
.31*** .08
Trust
.26
.37*** .09
Normative
.27
Alignment
R2/Adjusted
.33/.31
2
R
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.35***

.35/.31

92

.26
.37/.33

Table 5.18b Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Identification with Security Profession

Variables
b
SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

Identification with Security Profession
No Contact (n= 185)
Had Contact (n= 137)
SE
β
b
SE
β

-1.24
.01
.05

.74
.02
.04

-.11
.03
.08

-1.05
.05
-.09

1.25
.03
.10

-.06
.17
-.09

-.74
.77
-.04

.48
.50
.24

-.13
.13
-.01

2.36**
-.07
-.11

.93
.77
.47

.27
-.01
-.02

.18

.10

.20

.04

.17
.29

.45**
.33*

.14
.15

.35
.23

Legitimacy
Obligation to
.29**
.11
Obey
Trust
.17
.09
Normative
.37***
.10
Alignment
R2/Adjusted R2
.36/.32
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

.37/.33

The last dimension of cooperation was engagement in Extra-role Behavior. Compared to
the other models of cooperation, the explanatory power was considerably low for Extra-Role
Behavior (e.g. R2= 0.04 for full model). Nonetheless, the full model showed that males (b= 1.20;
p≤ 0.05) and individuals with higher Normative Alignment (b= 0.22; p≤ 0.01) were more likely to
take part in extra-role activities.
When comparing by type of employment, marital status was the only significant predictor
(Married; b= 1.95; p≤ 0.01) for those working on a contract basis, and none of the variables were
significantly related to the dependent variable for in-house participants. Finally, Normative
Alignment (b= 0.32; p≤ 0.01) and Extra-Role Behavior were positively related for the respondents
without contact experience. However, for those who had had contact with a police officer, no
significant predictors were found.
93

Table 5.19a Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (All & by Employment Type): Extra-role behavior

Variables

SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

All Private Security
Officers (n= 322)
b
SE
Β

Extra-role behavior
Contract Officers
(n= 170)
b
SE
β

In-House Officers
(n= 142)
b
SE
β

1.20*
.01
-.01

.55
.01
.04

.13
.09
-.02

.80
-.03
-.01

.95
.02
.04

.07
-.19
-.02

1.30
.06
-.05

.80
.07
.10

.14
.11
-.07

.11
.18
.14

.38
.36
.19

.02
.03
.05

-.69
.01

.53
.69
.24

-.13
.35
.00

.49
-.43
.31

.67
.50
.36

.08
-.08
.08

.30

-.05

-.67

.38

-.13

-.07

.53

-.01

-.05
-.05
.23

-.23
.08
.16

.12
.10
.09

-.16
.08
.15

.05
-.06
.20

.13
.10
.12

.04
-.09
.22

Contact
Contact Experience -.26

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey -.07
.09
Trust
-.04
.07
Normative
.22** .07
Alignment
R2/Adjusted R2
.07/.04
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

1.95**

.16/.10

.09/.02

Table 5.19b Ordinary Least Squares Analysis (by Contact): Extra-role behavior

Variables
b
SocioDemographic
Male
Age
Years of
Experience
Monthly
Income
Married
Education

Extra-role behavior
No Contact (n= 185)
Had Contact (n= 137)
SE
β
b
SE
β

1.12
.02
-.02

.74
.02
.04

.12
.11
-.04

1.59
.01
.00

.89
.02
.07

.16
.06
.00

-.14

.49

-.03

.60

.67

.12

.06
.09

.51
.25

.01
.03

.20
.09

.55
.33

.04
.03

94

Table 5.19b (cont’d)
Legitimacy
Obligation to
-.16
.11
Obey
Trust
-.06
.09
Normative
.32**
.10
Alignment
R2/Adjusted R2 .11/.06
*p≤ 0.05; ** p≤ 0.01; ***p≤ 0.001

-.12

.04

.14

.03

-.07
.29

-.01
.13

.10
.10

-.01
.15

.06/.00

(3) Further analysis
Further multivariate analyses were conducted after imputing the missing data. Although,
as mentioned earlier, diagnostic tests indicated that the missing data in the sample were MCAR,
additional examination of the OLS models was warranted considering the number of cases lost
through the listwise deletion method (Schafer & Graham, 2002).
MI is a useful method to employ when addressing potential issues caused by missing data,
because instead of replacing missing data with a single value, it substitutes them with simulated
versions. Then the results are reported based on such simulations of complete datasets while taking
missing-data uncertainty into account (Schafer, 1999).
For each dimension of cooperation, ten imputations were conducted. Therefore, in terms
of interpretation of the results, the regression coefficients are an arithmetic mean of the individual
coefficients estimated for the ten regression models. As expected, the findings (see Appendix D)
with or without the MI method were mostly similar.
Nonetheless, Obligation to Obey was the only significant variable related to Compliance
(b= 0.19; p≤ 0.05). Unlike in the model without the MI method employed, Normative Alignment
did not explain the security officers’ compliance with the laws. Moreover, for Likelihood of
Cooperative Behavior, the comparable significant relationships were reported between age (b= 0.07; p≤ 0.001), contact experience (b= 1.51; p≤ 0.001), Obligation to Obey (b= 0.45; p≤ 0.001),
95

and Trust (b= 0.26; p≤ 0.01) and the dependent variable in the Complete-Case (CC) and the MI
analyses. However, Normative Alignment was found to predict the outcome variable (b= 0.28; p≤
0.05) when the missing data were imputed, which was not suggested in the CC model.
Additionally, for Empowerment, the findings of the regression analysis with MI did not
vary from those of the CC model. To illustrate, the same variables predicted participants’ favorable
opinions about granting authority to the police, such as Male (-b= 1.34; p≤ 0.05), Obligation to
Obey (b= 0.33; p≤ 0.001), Trust (b= 0.24; p≤ 0.001), and Normative Alignment (b= 0.35; p≤
0.001).
Furthermore, findings for the dependent variable Identification with Security Profession
revealed that Male (b= -1.45; p≤ 0.05), Age (b= 0.04; p≤ 0.01), Trust (b= 0.30; p≤ 0.001), and
Normative Alignment (b= 0.35; p≤ 0.001) were significant correlates after employing the MI
method. With the exception of Age, these were the same significant variables in the CC model.
Lastly, Male (b= 1.22; p≤ 0.05) and Normative Alignment (b= 0.25; p≤ 0.001) were significantly
related to the respondents’ engagement in Extra-role Behavior in the MI model, which was also
shown in the CC analysis.
4. Chapter Summary
In this chapter, results of statistical analyses were presented. Descriptive statistics
described the socio-demographic characteristics of the respondents as well as their general
attitudes toward instrumental and normative aspects of the work of the police. Additionally,
information about participants’ views on police legitimacy and their opinions about and
engagement in cooperative behavior with the police were revealed through the univariate analyses.
Bivariate analyses allowed assessment of the relationship between independent and
dependent variables. Independent sample t-tests and one-way ANOVA were conducted to

96

investigate potential differences in terms of the dependent variables by socio-demographic groups
and contact experience with a police officer. Moreover, the bivariate correlation analysis provided
information on the relationships between the variables included in the multivariate models as well
as on the potential multicollinearity issues.
Different OLS models were developed and analyzed to examine predictors of the
perceptions of police legitimacy and cooperation with the police. Multivariate analyses were useful
in identifying which variables had significant independent explanatory power while controlling
for the socio-demographic characteristics and contact experience with police. In addition to the
models including all participants, subgroup OLS models by type of employment and contact
experience were run based on the existing knowledge that these subgroups should have varying
attitudes toward their public counterparts.
Furthermore, by taking the substantial number of deleted cases into consideration, the OLS
models with the MI method employed were analyzed to investigate whether there were any varying
findings from the CC models. The results revealed a few differences, but they did not deviate from
the initial models considerably.

97

Table 5.20a: Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Legitimacy (Obligation To Obey)

Variables
All Private
Security
Officers

Obligation To Obey
Type of Employment
Contact Experience
Contract
In-House
No Contact Had
Officers
Officers
Contact

Socio-Demographic
Monthly income

+

+

NS

+

NS

Contact
Contact experience

+

NS

NS

NA

NA

+
NS

+
+

Attitudinal
Police performance
+
+
+
Procedural justice
+
NS
+
+: Positive relationship; NS: Not Significant; NA: Not Applicable

Table 5.20b Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Legitimacy (Trust)

Variables
All Private
Security
Officers
Socio-Demographic
Age
Married
Education

NS
NS
NS

Trust
Type of Employment
Contract
In-House
Officers
Officers

+
NS
NS

Attitudinal
Police performance
+
+
Distributive justice
+
+
Procedural justice
+
+
+: Positive relationship; NS: Not Significant

98

Contact Experience
No Contact Had
Contact

NS
+
NS

NS
NS
+

NS
NS
NS

+
NS
+

+
NS
+

+
+
+

Table 5.20c Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Legitimacy (Normative Alignment)

Variables
All Private
Security
Officers

Normative Alignment
Type of Employment
Contact Experience
Contract
In-House
No Contact Had
Officers
Officers
Contact

Socio-Demographic
Education

+

+

NS

+

NS

Contact
Contact experience

+

NS

+

NA

NA

+
NS
+

NS
+
+

Attitudinal
Police performance
+
NS
+
Distributive justice
NS
NS
NS
Procedural justice
+
+
+
+: Positive relationship; NS: Not Significant; NA: Not Applicable

Table 5.21a Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation (Compliance)

Variables
All Private
Security
Officers
Socio-Demographic
Married

NS

Compliance
Type of Employment
Contact Experience
Contract
In-House
No Contact Had
Officers
Officers
Contact

NS

NS

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey
+
NS
NS
Normative Alignment
NS
NS
+: Positive relationship; -: Negative relationship; NS: Not Significant

99

NS

-

+
NS

NS
-

Table 5.21b Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation
(Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior)

Variables
All Private
Security
Officers

Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior
Type of Employment
Contact Experience
Contract
In-House
No Contact Had
Officers
Officers
Contact

Socio-Demographic
Age
Years of experience
Education

NS
NS

NS
NS

NS
NS
NS

NS
NS

NS
+

Contact
Contact experience

+

NS

+

NA

NA

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey
+
+
+
+
+
Trust
+
+
+
NS
NS
Normative Alignment
NS
NS
NS
+
NS
+: Positive relationship; -: Negative relationship; NS: Not Significant; NA: Not Applicable
Table 5.21c Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation (Empowerment)

Variables
All Private
Security
Officers

Empowerment
Type of Employment
Contact Experience
Contract
In-House
No Contact Had
Officers
Officers
Contact

Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of experience
Education

NS
NS
NS

NS
+
NS
-

NS
NS
+
NS

+
NS
NS

NS
NS
NS
NS

Contact
Contact experience

NS

-

NS

NA

NA

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey
+
NS
+
NS
+
Trust
+
NS
+
NS
+
Normative Alignment
+
+
NS
+
+
+: Positive relationship; -: Negative relationship; NS: Not Significant; NA: Not Applicable
100

Table 5.21d Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation
(Identification with Security Profession)

Variables
All Private
Security
Officers

Identification with Security Profession
Type of Employment
Contact Experience
Contract
In-House
No Contact Had
Officers
Officers
Contact

Socio-Demographic
Male
Monthly income
Married

NS
NS

NS
+

NS
NS
NS

NS
NS
NS

NS
+
NS

Contact
Contact experience

NS

-

NS

NA

NA

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey
NS
+
NS
+
NS
Trust
+
NS
+
NS
+
Normative Alignment
+
+
NS
+
+
+: Positive relationship; -: Negative relationship; NS: Not Significant; NA: Not Applicable
Table 5.21e Summary of OLS Analysis Findings: Cooperation (Extra-Role Behavior)

Variables
All Private
Security
Officers
Socio-Demographic
Male
Married

+
NS

Extra-Role Behavior
Type of Employment
Contact Experience
Contract
In-House
No Contact Had
Officers
Officers
Contact

NS
+

NS
NS

NS
NS

NS
NS

Legitimacy
Normative Alignment
+
NS
+: Positive relationship; NS: Not Significant

NS

+

NS

101

CHAPTER 6. DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSION
Owing to myriads of research on the citizens’ perceptions of the police, there is a degree
of consensus in regard to the factors that impact people’s attitudes toward authorities. The seminal
work by Tyler (1990) and the studies examining the legitimacy of authorities and cooperation by
subordinates have informed readers of the way in which legitimacy promotes voluntary
compliance and other actions that facilitate authorities’ performing their work pertaining to social
control. Particularly, perceived legitimacy of supervisors and prescribed rules not only increase
compliance, but also increase deference to the rules and the decisions made by them (Tyler &
Blader, 2000).
Based on the evidence supporting the importance of legitimacy, much investigation has
been carried out on police legitimacy. The empirical results show that it plays a crucial role in
carrying out their tasks of governing security and regulating people’s behavior. A positive
relationship between the perception of police legitimacy and cooperation by citizens is found in
various cultural settings (Jackson et al., 2012; Murphy et al., 2008; Tankebe et al., 2016; Tyler &
Jackson, 2014). Moreover, police legitimacy is suggested to promote cooperative behavior in
specific areas of policing such as counter-terrorism activities (Cherny & Murphy, 2013) and
compliance with tax (Murphy et al., 2009) and gun (Papachristos et al., 2012) laws. Additionally,
when people view the police as a legitimate authority, they are more likely to report their
victimization experience (Kochel et al., 2013).
With the abundance of empirical evidence of police legitimacy and citizens’ cooperation
in current policing literature, this exploratory research is conducted based on acknowledging the
changes that have occurred in the field of policing. Scholars have noted that today’s policing is
performed by various entities that comprise the nodes in the network of governance (Bailey &

102

Shearing, 1996; Wood & Shearing, 2013). Furthermore, the worldwide trend of shifting toward
neoliberalism and increasing privatization of the public good have stimulated responsibilization of
policing (O’Malley & Palmer, 1996).
Despite this development in the network of security governance, little knowledge exists on
non-public policing agents, especially the perceptions of private security officers toward their
public counterparts. Therefore, by applying the conceptual framework of previous studies on
citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy and cooperation with police, this research has examined
such views of private security guards and their attitudes toward and engagement in cooperation
with the police.
In the following, a detailed discussion of the research findings is presented. Drawing from
the results of the analyses, how participants’ socio-demographic characteristics and instrumental
and normative judgments of police officers are associated with their perceptions of police
legitimacy and cooperation are assessed. In addition, the potential role of police legitimacy in
shaping the security guards’ views toward and engagement in cooperation with the police is
explored. Then, the contributions of this research to current private security and policing literature
are considered. Furthermore, theoretical and policy implications are discussed, followed by
critique of research limitations and suggestions for future research. First, key research findings are
as follows:
1. Police Legitimacy (Obligation To Obey)
•

Monthly income and Obligation To Obey are positively linked.

•

Contact experience increases Obligation To Obey.

•

Police performance and Obligation To Obey are positively related.

•

Procedural justice is positively associated with Obligation To Obey.

103

2. Police Legitimacy (Trust)
•

Police performance and Trust are positively related.

•

Distributive justice is positively associated with Trust.

•

Procedural justice and Trust are positively linked.

3. Police Legitimacy (Normative Alignment)
•

Officers with higher education show greater Normative Alignment.

•

Contact experience and Normative Alignment are positively related.

•

Police performance and Normative Alignment are positively linked.

•

Procedural justice and Normative Alignment are positively associated.

1. Effects of Socio-Demographic and Attitudinal Variables on Police Legitimacy
(1) Socio-demographic characteristics and police legitimacy
In discussing and interpreting the results, it should be noted that there are diverse ways of
defining and conceptualizing police legitimacy as well as developing analytic models. The analytic
approach employed in this research was guided by Tyler and Jackson (2014) that included both a
comprehensive scale consisting of all dimensions (i.e. Obligation, Trust and confidence, and
Normative alignment) of legitimacy as well as individual constructs as the outcome variables. In
this research, individual dimensions of legitimacy were predicted but the comprehensive
legitimacy measure was excluded because the primary purpose was to guide future research and
policy implementation in the area of public-private police cooperation by offering specific areas
to work on for both researchers and practitioners, rendering the prediction of “general” police
legitimacy unnecessary.
Findings showed that varying socio-demographic characteristics predicted different
dimensions of police legitimacy. To illustrate, as in Sunshine & Tyler (2003), the security guards’

104

income was positively related to their perceptions of obligation to obey the law and following the
directives of police officers. In addition, the security officers’ education levels and their degrees
of normative alignment with police officers were positively associated, supporting a previous
research finding (Tyler & Jackson, 2014).
Existing evidence does not show consistent relationships between socio-demographic
correlates and the perception of police legitimacy. Some suggest that age and the view on police
legitimacy are positively related (e.g. Murphy et al., 2008; Papachristos et al., 2012), while others
suggest the opposite (e.g. Reisig et al., 2014; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Such variability in findings
may result from the different contexts in which the studies are carried out. It could also be an
outcome of the diverse characteristics of the sample. For example, a study that examines ordinary
citizens (e.g. Murphy et al., 2008) may find different relationships between the socio-demographic
and the dependent variables from another study examining individuals with victimization
experience (e.g. Kochel et al., 2013).
For the current research, subgroup regression analyses are conducted by considering
various conditions under which security officers work. Not only do they perform various duties
(Wakefield, 2003), some are employed based on a contract while others are part of the in-house
staff. Moreover, the security officers could have had contact with a police officer in personal and/or
professional sphere, which could shape their attitudes (Cheurprakobkit, 2002). Findings showed
that the contract security officers’ monthly income, age, and education levels were positively
associated with their obligation to obey the law, trust, and normative alignment, respectively.
However, none of these socio-demographic variables predicted the perceptions of police
legitimacy among the in-house security officers. One of the unique intrinsic characteristics of
contract employees that may explain this difference is that they are not tied to or affected by

105

particular organizational cultures or customs. Thus, it can be speculated that their views about
police legitimacy are more impacted by personal characteristics and experience rather than the
attitudes toward the work of the police.
Furthermore, the security guards who had had contact with a police officer during the past
year were shown to exhibit greater obligation to obey the law and normative alignment with the
police. The subgroup analyses by contact experience revealed that whereas monthly income and
education were positive correlates of police legitimacy among those without contact, no such
relationships were found for individuals who had an encounter with a police officer. Based on
these results, personal characteristics did not exert substantial influence on perception of police
legitimacy when contact with a police officer was taken into consideration. This indicates that the
contact experience could have affected the security officers’ perceptions of the police.
(2) Attitudes toward the police and police legitimacy
Compared to the case of socio-demographic characteristics, the existing literature on police
legitimacy presents consistent relationships between the instrumental and normative judgments of
the police and police legitimacy. Particularly, both perceptions of instrumental and normative
aspects of the police and their work are associated with favorable evaluation of the authority.
Research has found that police performance and effectiveness as well as distributive justice (i.e.
instrumental) and procedural justice (i.e. normative) affect people’s perceptions of police
legitimacy positively (Hinds & Murphy, 2007; Murphy et al, 2008; Papachristos et al., 2012;
Reisig et al., 2014; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Jackson, 2014). The results of this research
show that performance and procedural justice of the police were positively related to all
dimensions of legitimacy were supported by existing evidence. Additionally, the significance of

106

distributive justice in predicting trust in and normative alignment with the police aligned with
current knowledge.
Moreover, it was interesting to find that when comparing the significant correlates between
the groups based on contact experience, procedural justice predicted the feeling of obligation to
obey the law only among the security officers with contact experience. In addition, for the officers
who had not had encountered a police officer, police performance affected all dimensions of police
legitimacy positively, but their views on distributive justice of the police did not show significant
explanatory power.
On the other hand, distributive justice was an important correlate of police legitimacy for
those with contact experience, demonstrating that aside from their effectiveness in dealing with
the issues related to crime and disorder, equal distribution of policing services and application of
the law was important. It can be hypothesized that the officers who had contact with a police officer
would have more information and opinions about distributive and procedural justice of the police
through interacting with them. This in turn, may have played an important role in forming their
views on the legitimacy of the police.
The results of the OLS models predicting the dimensions of police legitimacy revealed that
varying socio-demographic characteristics were related to the outcome variables, which accorded
with the existing research findings that lack consensus in regard to the associations. Nonetheless,
as suggested by empirical evidence, both instrumental and normative aspects of the police were
significant in enhancing participants’ views on their legitimacy. The subsequent series of
multivariate models shed light on the correlates of cooperation with police. Particularly, whether
the results of previous research suggesting a positive relationship between police legitimacy and

107

citizen cooperation remained this research was examined. The following is a list of the main
findings of police legitimacy and respondents’ attitudes and engagement in cooperative behavior:
1. Cooperation (Compliance)
•

Obligation To Obey and Compliance are positively related.

•

Normative Alignment and Compliance are negatively associated (further
examination using the multiple imputation method shows that this relationship is
no longer significant).

2. Cooperation (Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior)
•

Older officers are more likely to engage in cooperative behavior.

•

Having contact experience increases Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior.

•

Obligation To Obey and Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior are positively related.

•

Trust and Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior are positively linked.

3. Cooperation (Empowerment)
•

Male respondents are less likely to empower the police.

•

Obligation To Obey and Empowerment are positively associated.

•

Trust and Empowerment are positively linked.

•

Normative Alignment and Empowerment are positively related.

108

4. Cooperation (Identification with Security Profession)
•

Male participants are less likely to identify with their profession

•

Trust and Identification with Security Profession are positively related.

•

Normative Alignment and Identification with Security Profession are positively
associated.

5. Cooperation (Extra-Role Behavior)
•

Male officers are more likely to engage in Extra-Role Behavior

•

Normative Alignment and Extra-Role Behavior are positively related.

2. Effects of Socio-Demographic Characteristics and Legitimacy on Cooperation
Cooperation with the police was the main outcome of interest in this research. The lack of
studies on security officers’ views on cooperation with the police necessitated referring to the
research conducted on the citizens’ perceptions. As in the case with police legitimacy, scholars
have measured cooperation in a variety of ways.
In a general organizational context, Tyler and Blader (2000) measure cooperative behavior
with compliance, in-role behavior (e.g. fulfill the responsibilities specified in job description),
deference (e.g. follow organization’s policies), and extra-role (e.g. volunteer to help to orient new
employees). Examination of people’s cooperation with the police have been conceptualized as
compliance with the law, cooperative behavior, empowerment (Cherney & Murphy, 2013; Jackson
et al., 2012; Murphy et al, 2009; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008; Tankebe, 2013).
Additionally, some researchers have looked at people’s reporting behavior of their own
victimization experience (Kochel et al., 2013) as well as the degree to which they identify with
their communities (Tyler & Jackson, 2014). Current research included compliance with the law,
likelihood of cooperative behavior, empowerment, identification with security profession, and

109

engagement in extra-role activities separately as the outcome variable in the OLS models,
regressing them on the socio-demographic variables and on each dimension of legitimacy.
(1) Socio-demographic characteristics and cooperation with the police
The models analyzing all available cases showed that age was negatively related to
likelihood of cooperative behavior. This showed that older security guards were less likely to
engage in cooperative behavior with the police by reporting crime and sharing information, the
same relationship also suggested in previous studies (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tankebe, 2013).
Additionally, male security officers were shown to be less supportive of empowering police
officers and did not identify with the security profession as much as female security guards, but
they reported greater involvement in extra-role activities. Despite the lack of detailed information,
one may interpret this finding from a cultural perspective. To illustrate, the specific items
measuring the extra-role behavior of the participants included attending meetings to discuss
security issues in community, communicating views about community security to elected officials,
and talking with neighbors about security problems in community. Given that South Korean
society is still under the influence of Confucianism in which females are socialized to be passive
and roles are restricted to home (Lee, 1998), compared to their male counterparts, female officers
may find it more difficult to stay active and expand their involvement in the work of security
beyond the workplace.
When findings were compared by the groups based on type of employment, it was shown
that the socio-demographic variables explained cooperation of contract security officers well.
While different forms of cooperation by contract security officers were predicted by age, gender,
education and marital status, years of experience was the only significant variable that was related
to the in-house officers’ support of empowering the police.

110

Furthermore, contact experience had differing effects on contract and in-house security
officers’ cooperation. Specifically, having contact with a police officer was negatively related to
the contract officers’ empowerment of police officers and identification with security profession.
On the other hand, such experience impacted the in-house security officers’ likelihood of
cooperative behavior positively. Therefore, it could be guessed that the way in which the police
treated the two groups had varied and contributed to the distinct influence.
The results of OLS by contact experience revealed that for the security officers who had
had contact experience, education level and income were positively related to the likelihood of
cooperative behavior and identification with security profession. Prior studies support this finding
by showing that education (Martin & Shehan, 1989) and pay (Nalla, Paek, & Lim, 2016) are
positively related to job satisfaction, which can stimulate cooperative behavior such as
interpersonal helping (Bowling, 2010). In addition, C. Lee’s (1995) finding that satisfaction with
pay increases extra-role behavior further supports the relationship shown between income levels
and cooperative behavior among the security’s officers with contact experience.
Moreover, Tyler and Jackson (2014) provide empirical support by concluding that the
participants’ income and their compliance, helping the police, and identification with community
are positively associated. Also, education and compliance were found to be positively related in
the study. However, the results for the security officers without contact experience were
inconsistent when compared to the research of Tyler and Jackson. To illustrate, age was negatively
associated with the likelihood of cooperative behavior in this research, whereas Tyler and Jackson
found that it was positively related to helping the police, warranting continued exploration of the
relationship.

111

(2) Legitimacy and cooperation
Existing studies on the perception of police legitimacy and cooperation by citizens present
robust and consistent findings that establish a positive association between the two constructs.
Therefore, the general consensus is that the more the police are viewed as a legitimate authority,
citizens are more likely to cooperate with them in various ways such as compliance, sharing
information to solve a crime case, and engagement in extra-role behavior (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003;
Murphy et al., 2008; Murphy et al., 2009; Jackson et al., 2012; Cherney & Murphy, 2013; Reisig
et al., 2014; Tyler & Jackson, 2014).
The OLS results revealed the relationship between legitimacy and cooperation that
accorded with the existing knowledge. The dimensions of legitimacy were positively associated
with different types of cooperation with the police. Nonetheless, one contradictory finding was
that security officers’ normative alignment was negatively related to their compliance. In other
words, the respondents who believed they had similar viewpoints and backgrounds with and were
able to understand the decision-making by police officers reported having committed illegitimate
actions to a greater degree than others who did not exhibit as much normative alignment with the
police.
One possible explanation for this counterintuitive finding is that the offenses used to
measure the participants’ compliance with the law are not serious and are often committed by
individual citizens. Therefore, although illegal, none of the offenses can be considered deviant.
Additionally, these offenses do not pose significant harm to society and are not a threat to the
security of people. Moreover, in the OLS model with the potential missing data issue addressed
with MI, the negative relationship between security officers’ normative alignment with the police

112

and their compliance disappeared, demonstrating the marginal nature of the association in the
complete-case model.
When comparing the results by type of employment, different dimensions of legitimacy
predicted the varying types of cooperation for contract and in-house security officers. Due to the
restrictions of available data, the extent to which the group differences could be interpreted was
limited. Nonetheless, speculations were formed based on the nature of work conditions. In
explaining Empowerment and Identification with Security Profession, Trust and Normative
Alignment were significant variables for in-house and contract officers, respectively. Because
contract officers are less likely to experience job security and exert autonomy at work, being able
to relate to police officers and believing that they have similarities could promote cooperation. On
the other hand, the in-house officers may view police officers as more of partners, so being able to
trust their work and motives could increase cooperation.
3. Contribution of Current Research
This research was carried out in the hope of making positive contributions to the literature
on private security and privatization of policing, and the following have been done in order to
serve this purpose. First, as pointed out by Button and Park (2009), the majority of existing studies
on security officers’ occupational culture, function and status have focused on the United
Kingdom, North America, and Australia. Because the growth of the private security industry has
been witnessed in other parts of the world as well, especially in Asia (Hou & Sheu, 1994; Nalla
1998; Yoshida, 1999), the current research is expected to be a meaningful addition by filling the
gap. Considering the unique cultural and historical backgrounds of South Korea (Moon, 2004), the
research findings could enrich the discussion of private security officers and how their functions

113

and relationships with other agents of policing (i.e. police officers) may be influenced by such
factors.
Second, despite the valuable contributions made by existing studies on the backdrop of the
rapid growth of the private security industry (Lee, 2004), structure and regulation (Button et al.,
2006), and the relationships between police and security officers (Nalla & Hummer, 1999; Nalla
& Hwang, 2006) in South Korea, there is little knowledge in regard to the predictors of security
officers’ willingness to cooperate with the police. Cooperation by security officers has different
implications than that by ordinary citizens because of their professional status. It is important to
note that the diverse duties they perform (Wakefield, 2003) bring them into contact with citizens
(Nalla et al, 2016), and being part of an essential node in today’s security network (Shearing, 2005)
makes public-private cooperation in policing an important topic of discourse. Therefore,
examination into the correlates of cooperation by security officers will help advance the literature
on the South Korean private security.
Third, as an exploratory study, the approach taken by this research is not confined to a
certain conceptual or analytical model. Although drawing from previous studies and building on
the analytic models based on the work of Tyler and Jackson (2014), trying various ways to
conceptualize and model police legitimacy and cooperation with them (i.e. dimensions of
legitimacy and cooperation) was possible by being the first research of its kind. Also, other
disciplines such as organizational psychology have been referred to in order to inform the analyses
and discussion by type of employment (i.e. contract vs. in-house). Moreover, subgroup analyses
by contact experience have been conducted. These strategies are expected to stimulate additional
research and a new line of inquiry in the future.

114

Through this research, an attempt has been made to add to the existing literature by
providing new insights into the private security industry and officers’ opinions on the police.
Specifically, exploration of how security guards’ view of their public counterparts and cooperation
with them could be a starting point for continued discourse and lay a foundation for effective
public-private partnerships in policing.
4. Theoretical Implications
As mentioned previously, without an established conceptual theoretical framework,
previous research on citizens’ cooperative behavior with the police has been referred to in
designing the current research. Based on the findings, several theoretical implications can be
discussed, which will provide clearer guidelines for future studies.
The concept of cooperation between public and private nodes of the network of security
governance can be approached from different perspectives. First, the benefits of such nodal
cooperation can be explained by theories like RAT (Cohen & Felson, 1979) and the augmentation
and transformation theories (Sklansky, 2006). These theories posit that the cooperation provides
additional resources for maintaining security and order. In addition, policing duties can be
performed in a more effective and efficient way by sharing each other’s strategies.
With theoretical evidence of the advantages of such interorganizational cooperation, both
parties must feel the need for interagency collaboration and be willing to partake in the cooperative
efforts in order to reap the actual benefits. Prior research suggests that security and police officers
do not communicate their views on working with each other very well. For instance, although not
true, security officers are shown to believe that the police are not very keen on the idea of
collaboration (Nalla & Hummer, 1999).

115

Given the hierarchical relationship between the two organizations that is different from that
of Western nations in which the police and the private security maintain a horizontal relationship,
the way that security officers perceive their public counterparts may be different. Nonetheless, the
findings of the current research accorded with those of existing research in general, rendering
existing legitimacy and process-based models of cooperation (Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002)
relevant conceptual frameworks in assessing the cooperation between the private security and the
police in South Korea.
Furthermore, there is substantial research on cooperative behavior within an organizational
setting in the field of organizational psychology. For example, research shows that job satisfaction
can increase an individual’s cooperative behavior (Bowling, 2010). Moreover, considering other
relevant constructs like job commitment and withdrawal behavior can deepen the discourse on
cooperation. Considering the disadvantageous conditions under which South Korean security
officers work (Button & Park, 2009), incorporating such theories from other disciplines can be
beneficial.
Additionally, it will be meaningful if scholars can make attempts at developing an
integrated theory of cooperation. Specifically, different integration methods such as end-to-end,
side-by-side, and up-and-down (Hirschi, 1979) should be encouraged. For instance, being treated
unfairly by the supervisor within an organizational setting may lead to a security officer’s lower
job satisfaction, which in turn can reduce the likelihood of engaging in extra-role behavior (endto-end). Another example of an integrated theory may present a proposition that explains a security
officer’s cooperation partly through their job commitment and partly by the perception of police
legitimacy (side-by-side). Lastly, Herzberg (1968) has suggested that factors including
achievement, recognition, and responsibility determine job satisfaction. Under this broad idea of

116

job satisfaction, security officers’ cooperation with the police may be explained (up-and-down)
(i.e. involvement in cooperation as a means to increase one’s job satisfaction through recognition).
To summarize, although there are no established theoretical models, the models for police
legitimacy and citizen cooperation serve the purpose of the current research. Given that security
officers work in a variety of forms and perform different duties under distinct work settings
(Wakefield, 2003), consulting organizational psychology literature may also strengthen the overall
conceptual model. Furthermore, exploring ways to integrate, if possible, the relevant theories is
expected to offer a stronger explanation of security officers’ attitudes toward and actual
cooperation with police officers than individual theories alone.
As stated by Bernard and Ritti (1990), theoretical frameworks should guide research
designs. Then, research studies are conducted and the results should inform policy implementation.
Therefore, if future studies are designed with more refined theoretical framework, their results are
expected to have valuable policy implications.
5. Policy Implications
Although current research lacks robust theoretical inputs, there are important policy
implications to be discussed. Most importantly, the South Korean police should not only
emphasize their performance and effectiveness in crime prevention and control, but also the way
in which they distribute their services and treat citizens in the process of carrying out their duties.
This research provides empirical evidence that security guards’ perceptions of police performance
and distributive and procedural justice are all positively related to police legitimacy, which in turn
promotes cooperative behavior.
One way that the police can enhance each of the aforementioned correlates of legitimacy
and cooperation is through education and training. Upper management should be informed of

117

existing research findings and distribute to lower-ranking officers the ideas of equal distribution
of services and treatment of citizens. Moreover, police officers should be cognizant of the positive
impact of interacting with citizens in a respectful and civil manner. As discussed, due to the unique
history of the South Korean police, they have been viewed as an authoritarian organization until
recently (Moon, 2004). Furthermore, considering the hierarchical nature of the relationship
between the police and the private security, regular training and education programs aimed at
enhancing the image of the police will facilitate interorganizational cooperation.
Private security should also make a tremendous effort to improve their image as a
legitimate professional organization that is capable of functioning as part of the security network.
Research has suggested that South Korean security guards are not viewed as well trained or thought
of engaging in actual crime-fighting activities (Nalla & Hwang, 2004). Moreover, there is a great
deal of mistrust and skepticism in regard to their integrity and commitment among police officers
(Button et al., 2006). Therefore, the private security industry must place an emphasis on selecting
qualified individuals and developing them into competent policing agents through proper
education and training.
Another policy implication is creating more opportunities for cooperation between the
police and the private security. Wakefield (2003) has stated that in the course of cooperation, the
two entities are able to supplement each other and produce synergy effects in preventing and
responding to crime. Unfortunately, only 170 out of 436 security officers in this research reported
having contact with a police officer over the past year. Considering that not all of the people with
contact experience encountered a police officer within a work setting, it could be concluded that
the vast majority of respondents had not had a chance to work with the police. The issue pointed
out by Nalla and Hummer (1999), misunderstanding between police and security officers, could

118

be resolved by offering more opportunities for cooperation and help police and security officers
form more accurate perceptions about each other.
In order to increase the opportunities for the two organizations to work with each other,
programs such as leader meetings to discuss the security matters in the communities should be
developed and implemented. This will allow for active information sharing related to crime and
planning of joint operations in crime prevention and control. In addition, ride-along programs are
also suggested as a way to promote interagency cooperation and enhance the understanding of
each other and the outcome of work efficiency. Furthermore, establishing mutual role standards,
emergency contact networks, and information management system should be considered (Y. Lee,
1995).
Subsequently, specific areas that may require or benefit from cooperative policing should
be identified. Neighborhood watches, policing special public events (political, sports, etc.), and
controlling cybercrime are some of the examples. Particularly, cybercrime is an emerging crime
that has become a serious social issue in the country with 144,679 cases committed in 2015 (Korea
National Police Agency, 2015). Thus, by promoting the public-private cooperation in cyberspace,
related offenses are expected to be prevented or responded to more effectively.
Furthermore, with rapid privatization of different government services such as education,
and corrections, oversight has become an issue to address (Chassy & Amey, 2011). For instance,
corruption is a possible threat as the degree of government interventions decreases and the
autonomy of businesses increases. The private security industry is not free from this potential
problem. In response, promotion of public-private cooperation could enhance the oversight of the
industry and contribute to improving the overall transparency as well as effectiveness and

119

efficiency of policing services. In other words, interorganizational cooperation may moderate
potential negative effects of rapid privatization of policing services (Y. Lee, 1995).
6. Research Limitations and Recommendations for Future Research
There are several limitations in the current research. First, the convenience sample
recruited and analyzed do not represent the overall private security populations in South Korea,
rendering the findings not generalizable to those who are not included in the study. Furthermore,
the vast majority of participants have reported engaging in facility protection and all of them are
full-time employees. Therefore, the security guards who are employed on a part-time basis or in
other security sectors such as personal protection, escort security, electronic security, and special
security are excluded.
Additionally, data was collected from a large number of people using a cross-sectional
survey method. Thus, it is difficult to establish a temporal ordering between the variables.
Similarly, the OLS models can only reveal correlational links between variables, which makes
defining the causal pathways among the variables unfeasible. Despite the limitations in regard to
internal and external validity of the research findings, the specific design and method used are
suitable for this research because they serve the purpose of exploring significant predictors of
police legitimacy and cooperative behavior among participants.
By addressing the issues described above, future research should examine a more diverse
group of security officers such as those who work part-time and that engage in special security
duties (i.e. SSOs). In addition, using a probability sampling method will allow a generalization of
the results to and predictions about the larger security officer populations in South Korea (Agresti
& Finlay, 2009).

120

Furthermore, modeling and analyzing data through more advanced techniques like
Structural Equation Modeling (SEM) can provide insights into more refined and complex
relationships among variables. Also, employing qualitative methodology will enable profound
assessment of the relationships among the variables by providing richness of information. In this
research, some of the results from subgroup analyses cannot be understood fully, and a possible
remedy is to use a mixed method design. Among different ways to combine methods (Tashakkori
& Teddlie, 1998), the sequential mixed method design would have offered a solution to the issue.
In this method, quantitative analysis is followed by the qualitative phase such as interview in which
questions are asked about the areas for which clarification is needed.
Lastly, future research should consider delving into the perceptions of police officers
toward their private counterparts. Successful partnership and cooperation are not possible unless
both parties work together to achieve common goals (Bovaird, 2004; Johnston & Shearing, 2003).
Therefore, understanding police officers’ views on the legitimacy of security officers and working
with them will not only add to the existing knowledge, but also suggest policies that are more
viable in practice.
7. Conclusion
The focus of this research was to examine private security officers’ perceptions of police
officers and cooperation with them in South Korea. Specifically, based on the findings of previous
studies on citizens’ views on the police, security officers’ attitudes toward police officer’s
legitimacy and their link to cooperative behavior were explored.
Findings suggested that the views on both the instrumental and normative aspects of the
police work were positively related to police legitimacy. In addition, the dimensions of police
legitimacy were related to different types of cooperation. Theoretical and policy implications were

121

also discussed based the results of this research, and it was suggested that drawing from
organizational psychology and possible theoretical integration were expected to inform future
studies and advance the literature further.
Notwithstanding limitations of not being able to present causal relationships among the
constructs or generalize the results to a larger population, this exploratory research is meaningful
as the first attempt at assessing South Korean security officers’ cooperative behavior with the
police. This is a timely discourse given the structure of the nation’s governance of security
characterized by increasing privatization of policing services and re-formation of the policing
network that is mainly constituted of the police and the private security.
Finally, this line of inquiry should continue in order to enrich the literature on publicprivate police cooperation and offer viable policy implications. As noted by numerous scholars,
today’s policing is no longer monopolized by the police. In times when policing services are
provided by diverse agents in the network of security, it is hoped that current research offers
meaningful contributions to the existing knowledge and stimulates further exploration into the
topic.

122

APPENDICES

123

APPENDIX A. Key Research Findings in Literature
Table 5.22 Findings in Research on Police Legitimacy and Cooperation with the Police
Author(s)

Sample

Paternoster et al. (1997)

825 warned and arrested
male suspects of domestic
violence

Tyler & Blader (2000)

Tyler & Huo (2002)

404 employees

Main dependent
variable(s)
The number of spouse
assault incidents reported

Cooperative behaviors
(compliance, in-role,
deference, and extra-role)

1,656 residents of Oakland Acceptance of the
and Los Angeles
decisions of legal
authorities

124

Main significant
independent variable(s)
Race (black), prior
violence, perceived
procedural justice

Sanctions, legitimacy

Motive-based trust,
procedural justice

Key Finding(s)
Perceived procedural
justice suppresses
subsequent violence, even
in the face of adverse
outcomes.
Suspects that are arrested
and have perceived that
they are treated in a
procedurally fair manner
have subsequent assault
rates that are as low as
those suspects given a
more favorable outcome.
Perceived sanctioning
system and legitimacy of
supervisors and rules
increase compliance
behavior and deference to
rules and decisions made
by supervisor.
Legitimacy increases
extra-role behavior of
employees.
Perceived motive-based
trust and procedural
fairness of the authority
promote acceptance of
their decisions.

Table 5.22 (cont’d)
Sunshine & Tyler (2003)

2,239 New York City
Residents

Compliance with the law,
cooperation with police,
and police empowerment

Hinds & Murphy (2007)

2,611 residents in an
Australian jurisdiction

Legitimacy

Tyler & Fagan (2008)

830 New York City
residents

Helping the police and
helping the community

Police legitimacy, police
performance

Residents that view the
police as legitimate are
more willing to cooperate
with them by reporting
crimes or identifying
criminals, and by
engaging in community
activities to combat crime.

Police performance is
positively related to
cooperation with and
empowerment of police.
Education, age, procedural Procedural justice,
justice, distributive justice, distributive justice, and
and police performance
police performance affect
legitimacy positively.
Legitimacy, crime
Legitimacy (obligation,
conditions, risk,
trust, and confidence, and
identification with
identification with the
neighborhood
police) predicts helping
the police and the
community.
Crime conditions, sanction
risk, and identification
with neighborhood are
shown to be positively
related to helping the
community.

125

Table 5.22 (cont’d)
Murphy et al. (2008)

102 Australian residents

Cooperation with police
and police legitimacy

Previous cooperation and
legitimacy, procedural
justice, distributive justice

Tankebe (2009)

374 residents from Accra,
Ghana

Cooperation with police

Effectiveness

Murphy et al. (2009)

652 tax offenders, 110
university students that are
social security benefits
recipients, and 743
Australian citizens

Compliance behavior in
the contexts of tax and
social security and
willingness to cooperate
with police

Procedural justice and
legitimacy of laws

Willingness to cooperate
and perception of police
legitimacy are moderately
stable over time.
Legitimacy and
cooperation are positively
related and procedural and
distributive justice are
shown to increase
perception of legitimacy.
Public cooperation with
the police in Ghana is
affected by police
effectiveness in fighting
crime.
Perception of the
legitimacy of the law and
procedural justice impact
compliance and
cooperation positively.
Perception of the law
moderates the effect of
procedural justice on
compliance behaviors and
willingness to cooperate
with police. Procedural
justice is particularly
important for shaping
compliance and
cooperation when people
question the legitimacy of
the laws.

126

Table 5.22 (cont’d)
Jackson et al. (2012)

7,434 citizens from
England and Wales

Offending behavior
(compliance)

Papachristos et al. (2012)

141 gun offenders

Perceptions of legitimacy
of the law and carrying a
gun

Kochel et al. (2013)

280 victims of burglary,
robbery, and assault in
Trinidad Tobago

Reporting victimization to
police in the preceding six
months

Tankebe (2013)

5,120 London residents

Cooperation with police

127

Obligation to obey the
law, moral alignment with
the police, and personal
morality

Obligation to obey the law
and moral alignment with
the police are negatively
related to offending
behavior.

Personal morality is
negatively associated with
offending behavior.
Age, high school diploma, Individuals are more
perceptions of police, and likely to comply with the
perceptions of legitimacy
law (i.e. not carrying a
of police
gun) when they believe in
the substance of the law
and police legitimacy.
Legitimacy and procedural When police are perceived
fairness
as more procedurally just
and as legitimate, victims
are more likely to report
their victimization to
police.
Effectiveness
Perceived police
effectiveness increases
cooperation among
victims of crime but
decrease cooperation
among non-victims.

Table 5.22 (cont’d)
Cherney & Murphy
(2013)

Reisig et al. (2014)

302 residents in Brisbane
& Melbourne

693 residents in Slovenia

Cooperation with police in
general and in counterterrorism activities

Legitimacy and
compliance with the law

Police legitimacy, law
legitimacy, and Australian
identity

Male, procedural justice,
police effectiveness, moral
credibility, legitimacy,
low self-control, and
personal morality

Perceptions of police
legitimacy are most
important in predicting
cooperation in general
crime control activities.
Perceptions about the
legitimacy of the law and
identification with
Australian society matter
deal when it comes to
predicting cooperation in
counter-terrorism.
Male participants are less
likely to view police as
legitimate and comply
with the law.
Procedural justice and
effectiveness and moral
credibility are positively
related to police
legitimacy.
Police legitimacy and
personal morality are
positively associated with
compliance with the law.
Low self-control and
compliance with the law
are negatively related.

128

Table 5.22 (cont’d)
Tyler & Jackson (2014)

1,603 residents in the
United States

Legitimacy, compliance,
cooperation, and
engagement

Quality of treatment,
accuracy, police
effectiveness, procedural
justice

Perceived quality of
treatment, accuracy of
outcome, police
effectiveness, and
procedural justice predict
legitimacy of legal
authorities.
Legitimacy and risk of
sanction are positively
related to compliance and
help behavior.

Tankebe et al. (2016)

516 U.S. and 444
Ghanaian university
students

Cooperation and
compliance

Male, obligation to obey,
police legitimacy, low
self-control

Legitimacy is positively
associated with
community identification
and perceived social
capital.
Obligation to obey and
police legitimacy are
related to cooperation with
police in the United States
and Ghana, respectively.
Police legitimacy and
obligation to obey are
positively related to
compliance in the United
States.
Males and those with low
self-control are less likely
to comply with the law in
both countries.

129

APPENDIX B. Survey Instrument
Private Security Officers’ Perceptions of Police Legitimacy in South Korea: Implications for
interagency cooperation
Thank you for participating in this survey. The aim of this research is to broaden the scope of
existing knowledge regarding a range of attitudes and beliefs of private security officers on police
legitimacy. Specifically, the determinants of the perceptions of police legitimacy and willingness
to cooperate among private security officers are examined, and the implications for interagency
cooperation in the security network are discussed.
Please fill the questionnaire by marking your answers on the survey sheet. The survey
administrator does not know the names of the respondents that choose to participate in the study
nor does this survey have identification marks. All responses are completely anonymous and will
not be used in any ways that may identify the respondent. Your privacy will be protected to the
maximum extent allowable by law. Please return the questionnaire to the administrator once
completed.
Participation in this survey is voluntary and it will take about 20 minutes. Even after you agree to
respond to the survey, you may refuse to participate in certain procedures, answer certain
questions, or discontinue your participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits. To keep
this survey anonymous, please do not provide any identifiable information on the form. I do not
foresee any risks for responding to this survey. I believe that your participation will help me gain
a better understanding of how police officers are viewed by their counterparts in the private sector.
The submitted questionnaires will be coded into data files and both the questionnaires and the
coded data will be kept with the investigator at Michigan State University (MSU) (Baker Hall,
655 Auditorium Road, Room 134, East Lansing, MI 48824) for a period of 3 years after the
project closes. The data files will only be shared with the Institutional Review Board (IRB) at
MSU. Coded data will be password-protected and the computers storing data will be located in
the investigator’s office that is locked when unoccupied.
If you have questions or concerns about the research, such as scientific issues, how to do any part
of it, or to report an injury (i.e. physical, psychological, social, financial, or otherwise), please
contact Seung Yeop Paek (Baker Hall, 655 Auditorium Road, Room 134, East Lansing, MI
48824, paekseun@msu.edu, 517-353-5150).
If you have questions or concerns about your role and rights as a research participant, would like
to obtain information or offer input, or would like to register a complaint about this study, you
may contact, anonymously if you wish, Michigan State University’s Human Research Protection

130

Program (Phone: 517-355-2180; Fax: 517-432-4503; e-mail: irb@msu.edu; mail: Olds Hall, 408
W. Circle Drive, Room 207, East Lansing, MI, 48824).
You indicate your voluntary agreement to participate by completing and returning this
questionnaire.

131

In the following sections, I would like your views on the police officers and the police in South
Korea. Please answer the following questions by checking one of the answer choices.
1. Contact Experience with Police
NO.
Content
Contact Experience with Police
1-1

Yes

No

Have you had contact with a police officer
in the last 12 months?

If answered “yes” to 1-1, please respond to the following. If answered “no”, skip to 2-1.
NO.
1-2

1-3

1-4

Content
What was the nature of this contact?
(please check all that apply)

Personal

Professional

What was the reason for the “Personal” contact? (please check all that apply)
4 The police officer stopped me for
1 I needed information and/or help
traffic violation
2 I needed to report a
crime/accident/disturbance
5 Other:
3 The police officer made a remark
about my conduct
What was the reason for the “Professional” contact? (please check all that apply)
4 I took part in the cooperative effort to
1 Police requested information for crime
prevent crime (patrol, community
investigation
policing, etc.)
2 I needed to report a
crime/accident/disturbance
5 Other:
3 I needed to hand over the suspect of a
crime

132

In the following section, I would like your opinions about your personal and/or professional contact with
police officers. On a scale from 1 to 5, where 1= strongly disagree and 5= strongly agree, please circle the
number that represent your views on each of the following statements:

Satisfaction

NO.

Content
The police officer generally did a good
1-5
job dealing with the situation
I was generally satisfied with the way the
1-6
officer handled the situation
Motive-Based Trust
NO.
1-7
1-8
1-9
1-10

Content
Police officer considered my opinion
Police officer tried hard to do the right
thing
Police officer tried to take my/the client’s
need into account
Police officer cared about my/the client’s
concern

Personal

Professional

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

Personal

Professional

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

1 2 3 4 5

2. Perception of Police Legitimacy
NO.

Strongly
Disagree

Content

Obligation to Obey
2-1

People should obey the law even if it
goes against what they think is right.
2-2
Disobeying the law is seldom justified.
2-3
If a person is doing something and a
police officer tells them to stop, they
should stop even if they feel that what
they are doing is legal.
Trust and Confidence in Police
3-1

3-2
3-3

The police can be trusted to make
decisions that are right for the people in
my neighborhood.
People's basic rights are well protected
by the police in my neighborhood.
I am proud of the work of the South
Korean police.

133

Disagree

Not
Sure

Agree

Strongly
Agree

3-4

I have confidence that the South Korean
police can do its job well.
Moral/Normative Alignment
4-1

4-2
4-3

4-4

If I talked to most of the police officers,
I would find they have similar views to
my own on many issues.
My background is similar to that of many
of the police officers.
I can usually understand why the police
are acting as they are in a particular
situation.
Most of the police officers would value
what I contribute to security.

3. Instrumental and Normative Aspects of Policing
NO.

Content

Very
Unlikely

Unlikely

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Likely

Likely

Very
Likely

Not
Sure

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Somewhat

Sanction Risk
Likelihood of punishment for the following:
5-1
Illegal parking
5-2
Illegal disposal of trash and litter
5-3
Making noise at night
5-4
Speeding or breaking traffic laws
5-5
Violating copyrights
NO.

Content

Police Performance
6-1

The police do a good job dealing with
problems in the community.
6-2
The police do a good job preventing
crime
6-3
The police do a good job keeping order
on the streets.
6-4
The police do a good job responding to
emergencies.
Distributive Justice
7-1

7-2

People receive the outcomes they
deserve under the law when they deal
with the police.
The police provide their services equally
over different communities.

134

7-3

The police provide the same quality of
service to people living in all areas of the
city.
7-4
The police treat everyone equally.
7-5
It is about who you are when it comes to
police.
Procedural Justice
8-1
8-2

8-3
8-4
8-5
8-6
8-7

Police make decisions about how to
handle problems in fair ways.
Police make their decisions based on
facts, not their personal biases or
opinions.
Police clearly explain the reasons for
their actions.
Police give people a chance to express
their views before making decisions.
Police consider people's opinions when
deciding what to do.
Police treat people with dignity and
respect.
Police are concerned about respecting
citizens’ rights.

4. Cooperative Behavior
NO.

Very
Unlikely

Content

Willingness to Cooperate with the Police
9-1
9-2
9-3
9-4
9-5
9-6
9-7

How likely will you report a minor crime
you have witnessed to the police?
How likely will you report a serious
crime you have witnessed to the police?
How likely will you call the police to
report an accident?
How likely will you provide police with
information about an accident?
How likely will you provide police with
information to solve a crime?
How likely will you help the police to
find a suspect of a crime?
How likely will you report suspicious or
dangerous activities to the police?

135

Unlikely

Neutral

Likely

Very
Likely

NO.

Content

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Very
Often

Strongly
Disagree

Disagree

Not
Sure

Agree

Strongly
Agree

Never

Rarely

Sometimes

Often

Very
Often

Never

Compliance: During the last 6 months, how often have you:
10-1
10-2
10-3
10-4
10-5

parked a car illegally
disposed of trash and litter illegally
made noise at night
sped or broke traffic laws
violated copyrights

NO.

Content

Empowerment
11-1

The police should have the right to stop
and question people on the street.
11-2 The police should have the power to
decide which areas of the city should
receive the most police protection.
11-3 Because of their training and experience,
the police are best able to decide how to
deal with crime in neighborhood.
11-4 The police should have the power to do
whatever they think is needed to fight
crime.
11-5 If we give enough power to the police,
they will be able to effectively control
crime.
Engagement & Extra-Role Behavior
12-1
12-2

12-3
12-4

12-5
NO.

I am proud to contribute to the safety of
society.
When someone praises the achievements
of other security agents, it feels like a
personal compliment.
The things that my organization stands
for are important to me.
Being a part of the security network is
important to the way that I think of
myself as a person.
People respect what I contribute to the
security of community.
Content

Engagement & Extra-Role Behavior Contd.
How often do you:
13-1 attend meetings to discuss security
problems in community?

136

13-2

13-3

communicate
your
views
about
community security issues to elected
officials?
talk with your neighbors about security
problems in your community?

5. Career Choice Information
NO.
14-1
14-2
14-3

Content
Is any of your family members a police
officer?
Was private security your primary choice of
career?
Did you try to become a police officer first?
(have taken an exam, etc.)

Yes

1 I could not become
a police officer

14-4

Why did you become a private security
officer? (please mark all that apply)

2 This was my dream
job
3 This was what I
could do with my
educational background
and experience

No

4 I believed it was the
best way to contribute to
the security of the society
5 Other:

6. Background Information
15
16
17
18
19
20
21

22
23

Gender
1 Female
 2 Male
Age on last
birthday
Years of
Experience
Monthly Income
Won
Marital Status
 1 Married
 2 Not Married
Education
 1 High School
 3 Bachelor’s degree
 2 Associate Degree
 4 Master’s/Ph.D.
Area of Security  1 Facility  2 Personal  3 Escort
4
 5 Special
Protection
Protection
Security
Electronic
Security
Security
Type of
 1 In-house
 2 Contract
 3 Other
Employment
Employer
 50 or less
 51-100
 101-150
 151 or more
Business Size

137

APPENDIX C. Participants’ Career Choices
Figure 5.1a Private Security was Primary Choice of Career (n/%)

70/16%
No

Yes

No

Yes

357/84%

Figure 5.1b Have Tried to Become Police Officer First (n/%)

90/21%

334/79%

138

Figure 5.1c Reason for Becoming Private Security Officer (n/%)
Could not become
police officer
21/5%
Dream job
37/10%

Other
130/33%

What I could do with
my education and
background
169/43%

Best way to contribute
to security
33/9%

139

APPENDIX D. Additional Multivariate Analysis
Table 5.23a Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation): Compliance
Compliance (n= 431)
Variables
B

SE

Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

-.65
.02
.04
.24
-.09
-.01

.57
.01
.04
.40
.37
.19

Contact
Contact Experience

.03

.28

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey
Trust
Normative Alignment

.19*
.07
-.10

.08
.06
.07

Table 5.23b Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation):
Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior
Likelihood of Cooperative Behavior
(n= 435)
Variables
b

SE

Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

.06
-.07***
-.09
.01
.65
.39

.95
.02
.06
.67
.64
.32

Contact
Contact Experience

1.51***

.47

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey
Trust
Normative Alignment

.45***
.26**
.28*

.13
.10
.11

140

Table 5.23c Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation): Empowerment
Empowerment (n= 436)
Variables
b

SE

Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

-1.34*
.02
.05
.20
.21
-.09

.58
.01
.04
.39
.39
.19

Contact
Contact Experience

-.22

.29

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey
Trust
Normative Alignment

.33***
.24***
.35***

.08
.06
.07

Table 5.23d. Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation):
Identification with Security Profession
Identification with Security Profession
(n= 436)
Variables
b

SE

Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

-1.45*
.04**
-.02
.53
.38
-.13

.60
.01
.04
.41
.39
.20

Contact
Contact Experience

-.04

.30

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey
Trust
Normative Alignment

.12
.30***
.35***

.08
.07
.07

141

Table 5.23e Ordinary Least Squares analysis (multiple imputation): Extra-Role Behavior
Extra-role behavior (n= 435)
Variables
b

SE

Socio-Demographic
Male
Age
Years of Experience
Monthly Income
Married
Education

1.22*
.02
-.03
.26
.25
.07

.53
.01
.03
.37
.35
.18

Contact
Contact Experience

-.18

.26

Legitimacy
Obligation to Obey
Trust
Normative Alignment

-.05
-.04
.25***

.08
.06
.06

142

REFERENCES

143

REFERENCES

Agnew, R. (1992). Foundation for a general strain theory of crime and delinquency. Criminology,
30(1), 47-88.
Agresti, A., & Finlay, B. (2009). Statistical methods for the social sciences. Upper Saddle River,
NJ: Prentice Hall, Inc.
Anter, A. (2014). Max Weber’s Theory of the Modern State: Origins, structure and significance.
New York: Palgrave Macmillan.
Ashford, S. J., Lee, C., & Bobko, P. (1989). Content, cause, and consequences of job insecurity:
A theory-based measure and substantive test. Academy of Management journal, 32(4),
803-829.
Bachman, R., & Paternoster, R. (2004). The Purpose of Statistics in the Criminological Sciences.
In Statistics for criminology and criminal justice (pp. 1-24). New York, NY: McGrawHill.
Bayley, D. H., & Shearing, C. D. (1996). The future of policing. Law and society review, 585-606.
Beccaria, C. (1953 [1764]). An Essay on Crimes and Punishments. Stanford, CA: Academic
Reprints.
Beck, U. (1992). Risk society: Towards a new modernity. London: Sage.
Becker, T. M. (1974). The place of private police in society: An area of research for the social
sciences. Social problems, 21(3), 438-453.
Beetham, D. (1991). The Legitimation of Power. London: Macmillan.
Bernard, T., & Ritti, R. (1990). The role of theory in scientific research. In K. Kempf (Ed.),
Measurement Issues in Criminology (pp. 1-20). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Blau, P. M. (1964). Exchange and power in social life. New York: Wiley.
Bottoms, A., & Tankebe, J. (2012). Beyond procedural justice: A dialogic approach to legitimacy
in criminal justice. The journal of criminal law and criminology, 102(1) 119-170.
Bovaird, T. (2004). Public–private partnerships: from contested concepts to prevalent
practice. International review of administrative sciences, 70(2), 199-215.
Bowling, N. A. (2010). Effects of job satisfaction and conscientiousness on extra-role
behaviors. Journal of Business and Psychology, 25(1), 119-130.

144

Braithwaite, J. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration. Cambridge University Press.
Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2002). Government–nonprofit partnership: a defining framework. Public
administration and development, 22(1), 19-30.
Brinkerhoff, D. W., & Brinkerhoff, J. M. (2011). Public–private partnerships: perspectives on
purposes, publicness, and good governance. Public Administration and
Development, 31(1), 2-14.
Bureau of Labor Statistics (2015). Occupational Employment Statistics. Retrieved from
http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes339032.htm
Button, M. (2002). Private Policing. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.
Button, M. (2007). Security officers and policing: powers, culture and control in the governance
of private space. Burlington, VT: Ashgate Publishing.
Button, M., & Park, H. (2009). Security officers and the policing of private space in South Korea:
profile, powers and occupational hazards. Policing & society, 19(3), 247-262.
Button, M., Park, H., & Lee, J. (2006). The private security industry in South Korea: A familiar
tale of growth, gaps and the need for better regulation. Security Journal, 19(3), 167-179.
Caparini, M. (2006). Applying a Security Governance Perspective to the Privatisation of
Security. In A. Bryden & M. Caparini (Eds.). Private Actors and Security
Governance. Berlin, Germany: LIT Verlag.
Chassy, P., & Amey, S. H. (2011). Bad business: Billions of taxpayer dollars wasted on hiring
contractors. Project on Government Oversight, 1-42.
Cherney, A., & Murphy, K. (2013). Policing terrorism with procedural justice: The role of police
legitimacy and law legitimacy. Australian & New Zealand journal of criminology, 46(3),
403-421.
Cheurprakobkit, S. (2000). Police-citizen contact and police performance attitudinal differences
between hispanics and non-hispanics. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28(4), 325-336.
Clarke, R. V. (Ed.). (1992). Situational Crime Prevention: Successful Case Studies. Albany, NY:
Harrow and Heston.
Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity
approach. American sociological review, 44(4), 588-608.
DeCuir-Gunby, J. T. (2008). Mixed Methods Research in the Social Sciences. In J. W. Osborne
(Ed.), Best Practices in Quantitative Methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

145

Foucault, M. (1982). The subject and power. In H. L. Dreyfus & P. Rabinow (Eds.), Michel
Foucault: Beyond Structuralism and Hermeneutics (pp. 208-226). Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
George, B. & Kimber, S. (2014). The History of Private Security and Its Impact on the Modern
Security Sector. In M. Gill (Ed.), The Handbook of Security. New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor Analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, Calif.: Stanford
University Press.
Greenhalgh, L. (1983). Managing the job insecurity crisis. Human Resource Management, 22(4),
431-444.
Griffiths, C. T., & Winfree, L. T. (1982). Attitudes toward the police: A comparison of Canadian
and American adolescents. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal
Justice, 6(1-2), 127-141.
Gujarati, D. N. (2003). Basic Econometrics (4th Ed.). Singapore: McGraw-Hill
Hanson, D. W., & Fowler, R. B. (Eds.). (1971). Obligation and Dissent: An Introduction
to Politics. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
Hegtvedt, K. A. (2015). Creating legitimacy: The interrelated roles of justice and trust. In B. H.
Bornstein & A. Tomkins (Eds.). Motivating Cooperation and Compliance with
Authority (pp. 55-80). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International Publishing.
Hegtvedt, K. A., & Johnson, C. (2009). Power and Justice Toward an Understanding of
Legitimacy. American Behavioral Scientist, 53(3), 376-399.
Herzberg, F. (1968). One more time: How do you motivate employees. Harvard Business Review,
46(1), 53-62.
Hinds & Murphy (2007). Public Satisfaction With Police: Using Procedural Justice to Improve
Police Legitimacy. The Australian and New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 40(1), 2742.
Hirschi, T. (1969). Causes of Delinquency. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.
Hirschi, T. (1979). Separate and unequal is better. Journal of research in crime and
delinquency, 16(1), 34-38.
Hobbes, T. (1651). Leviathan: or, The matter, forme, & power of a common-wealth

146

ecclesiasticall and civill. London: Printer for A. Ckooke.
Hou, C., & Sheu, C. J. (1994). A study of the determinants of participation in a private security
system among Taiwanese enterprises. Police Stud.: International Review of Police
Development, 17(1), 13-23.
Irish, J. (1999). Policing for Profit: The Future of South Africa’s Private Security Industry.
Institute for Security Studies Monograph Series No. 39. Pretoria, South Africa: Institute for
Security Studies.
Jacob, H. (1971). Black and white perceptions of justice in the city. Law & Society Review, 6(1),
69-90.
Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012). Why do
people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British
journal of criminology, 52(6), 1051-1071.
Johnston, L. (1992). The Rebirth of Private Policing. London, UK: Routledge.
Johnston, L. (2000). Policing Britain: risk, security and governance. Harlow, UK: Longman.
Johnston, L. (2001). Private policing and its Links to Public Policing. Unit 5, Course PS301,
Open University of Hong Kong.
Johnson, C., Dowd, T. J., & Ridgeway, C. L. (2006). Legitimacy as a social process. Annual
review of sociology, 32(1), 53-78.
Johnston, L. & Shearing, C. (2003). Governing Security: Explorations in policing and justice.
London, UK: Routledge.
Jones, T., & Newburn, T. (1998). Private security and public policing. Oxford, UK: Clarendon
Press.
Joo, H. J. (2003). Crime and crime control. Social Indicators Research, 62(63), 239-263.
Kempa, M., Carrier, R., Wood, J., & Shearing, C. (1999). Reflections of the evolving concept of
'private policing'. European Journal on Criminal Policy and Research, 7(2), 197-223.
Kerlinger, F. N. (1964). Foundations of Behavioral Research: Educational and Psychological
Inquiry. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, Inc.
Kochel, T. R. (2012). Can police legitimacy promote collective efficacy?. Justice quarterly, 29(3),
384-419.
Kochel, T. R., Parks, R., & Mastrofski, S. D. (2013). Examining police effectiveness as a
precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with police. Justice quarterly, 30(5), 895-925.

147

Korea National Police Agency (2015). Police Statistical Yearbook 2014. Retrieved from
http://www.police.go.kr/portal/main/contents.do?menuNo=200141
Korean Statistical Information Service (2015). Population Census. Retrieved from
http://kosis.kr/statisticsList/statisticsList_01List.jsp?vwcd=MT_ZTITLE&parentId=A#S
ubCont
Kubrin, C. E., Stucky, T. D., & Krohn, M. D. (2009). Researching Theories of Crime and
Deviance. New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
Lawler, E. J., Thye, S., & Yoon, J. (2009). Social commitments in a depersonalized world. New
York: Russell Sage.
Lawrence, P. R., & Lorsch, J. W. (1969). Organization and environment: Managing
differentiation and integration. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Lee, C. (1995). Prosocial organizational behaviors: The roles of workplace justice, achievement
striving, and pay satisfaction. Journal of Business and Psychology, 10(2), 197-206.
Lee, C. M. (2004). Accounting for rapid growth of private policing in South Korea. Journal of
Criminal Justice, 32(2), 113-122.
Lee, M. S. (1998). Fear of crime among Korean Americans in the Chicago area: A multilevel
Analysis (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from
http://search.proquest.com.proxy1.cl.msu.edu/docview/304448884?pq-origsite=summon
(9939382)
Lee, Y. K. (1995). Tasks facing Korea's private security business, and its prospects for the
2000's. International Journal of Comparative and Applied Criminal Justice, 19(2), 223238.
Lipsky, M. (2010). Street-Level Bureaucracy, 30th Anniversary Edition: Dilemmas of the
Individual in Public Service: Dilemmas of the Individual in Public Service. New York:
Russell Sage Foundation.
Mann, C. J. (2003). Observational research methods. Research design II: cohort, cross sectional,
and case-control studies. Emergency Medicine Journal, 20(1), 54-60.
Manzo (2010). How private security officers perceive themselves relative to police. Security
Journal, 23(3), 192-205.
Martin, J. K., & Shehan, C. L. (1989). Education and job satisfaction: The influences of gender,
wage-earning status, and job values. Work and Occupations, 16(2), 184-199.
Martinez, R. O. (2016). The impact of neoliberalism on Latinos. Latino Studies, 14(1), 11-32.

148

Maslow, A. H. (1943). A theory of human motivation. Psychological review, 50(4), 370-396.
Mayer, R. C., Davis, J. H., & Schoorman, F. D. (1995). An integrative model of organizational
trust. Academy of management review, 20(3), 709-734.
Mazerolle, L., Sargeant, E., Cherney, A., Bennett, S., Murphy, K., Antrobus, E., & Martin, P.
(2014). Why Police Should Care About Procedural Justice and Legitimacy. In Procedural
Justice and Legitimacy in Policing (pp. 1-11). Cham, Switzerland: Springer International
Publishing.
McKnight, P. E., McKnight, K. M., Sidani, S., & Figueredo, A. J. (2007). Missing data: A gentle
introduction. New York: Guilford Press.
Ministry of Employment and Labor (2015). Yearbook of Employment and Labor Statistics.
Retrieved from http://laborstat.moel.go.kr
Moon, B. (2004). The politicization of police in South Korea: a critical review. Policing:
An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 27(1), 128-136.
Murphy, K., Hinds, L., & Fleming, J. (2008). Encouraging public cooperation and support for
police. Policing & Society, 18(2), 136-155.
Murphy, K., Tyler, T. R., & Curtis, A. (2009). Nurturing regulatory compliance: Is procedural
justice effective when people question the legitimacy of the law?. Regulation &
governance, 3(1), 1-26.
Nalla, M. K. (1998). Opportunities in an emerging market. Security Journal, 10(1), 15-21.
Nalla, M. K., & Hummer, D. (1999). Relations between police officers and security professionals:
a study of perceptions. Security journal, 12(3), 31-40.
Nalla, M. K., & Hwang, E. (2004). Assessing professionalism, goals, images, and nature of private
security in South Korea. Asian Policing, 2(1), 104-121.
Nalla, M. K., & Hwang, E. G. (2006). Relations between police and private security officers in
South Korea. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies &
Management, 29(3), 482-497.
Nalla, M. K., & Mesko, G. (2015). What Shapes Security Guards' Trust in Police? The Role of
Perceived Obligation to Obey, Procedural Fairness, Distributive Justice, and Legal
Cynicism. REVIJA ZA KRIMINALISTIKO INKRIMINOLOGIJO, 66(4), 307-319.
Nalla, M., & Newman, G. R. (1990). A primer in private security. New York: Harrow and
Heston.

149

Nalla, M. K., Ommi, K., & Murthy, V. S. (2013). Nature of work, safety, and trust in private
security in India: A study of citizen perceptions of security guards. In P. Unnithan (Ed.),
Crime and Justice in India (pp. 226-244). New Delhi: Sage.
Nalla, M. K., Paek, S. Y., & Lim, S. S. (2016). The influence of organizational and environmental
factors on job satisfaction among security guards in Singapore. Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 0004865816647995.
O’Malley, P. & Palmer, D. (1996). Post-keynesian policing. Economy and society, 25(2),
137-155.
Papachristos, A. V., Meares, T. L., & Fagan, J. (2012). Why do criminals obey the law? The
influence of legitimacy and social networks on active gun offenders. The Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 102(2), 397-440.
Parfomak, P. W. (2004). Guarding America: Security Guards and the U.S. Critical Infrastructure
Protection. CRS Report for Congress. Retrieved from https://fas.org/sgp/crs/RL32670.pdf
Paternoster, R. (2010). How much do we really know about criminal deterrence?. The Journal of
Criminal Law and Criminology, 100(3) 765-824.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Bachman, R., & Sherman, L. W. (1997). Do fair procedures matter?
The effect of procedural justice on spouse assault. Law and society review, 31(1) 163-204.
Paternoster, R., Brame, R., Mazerolle, P., & Piquero, A. (1998). Using the correct statistical test
for the equality of regression coefficients. Criminology, 36(4), 859-866.
Pitkin, H. (1966). Obligation and consent II. American Political Science Review, 60(01), 39-52.
Pringle, P. (1955). Hue and cry: the birth of the British police. Museum Press.
Ratner, B. (2013). The correlation coefficient: definition. DM Stat-1 Articles.
Reisig, M. D., Tankebe, J., & Mesko, G. (2014). Compliance with the law in Slovenia: The role
of procedural justice and police legitimacy. European Journal on Criminal Policy and
Research, 20(2), 259-276.
Rigakos, G. (2002). The new parapolice: Risk markets and commodified social control.
Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent crime: A
multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918-924.
Sargeant, E., Wickes, R., & Mazerolle, L. (2013). Policing community problems: Exploring the
role of formal social control in shaping collective efficacy. Australian & New Zealand
Journal of Criminology, 46(1), 70-87.

150

Schafer, J. L. (1999). Multiple imputation: a primer. Statistical methods in medical research, 8(1),
3-15.
Schafer, J. L., & Graham, J. W. (2002). Missing data: our view of the state of the art Psychological
methods, 7(2), 147-177.
Shaw, C. R., & McKay, H. D. (1942). Juvenile delinquency and urban areas. Chicago, IL: The
University of Chicago Press.
Shearing, C. (2005). Nodal security. Police Quarterly, 8(1), 57-63.
Shearing, C. D., & Stenning, P. (1983). Private security: implications for social control. Social
problems, 30(5), 493-506.
Sherman, L. W. (1993). Defiance, deterrence, and irrelevance: A theory of the criminal
sanction. Journal of research in Crime and Delinquency, 30(4), 445-473.
Sklansky, D. A. (2006). Private police and democracy. American Criminal Law Review, 43(1),89105.
Skolnick, J. H. (1994). Justice without Trial: Law enforcement in democratic society. New York:
Macmillan College Publishing Company.
Smith, K. G., Carroll, S. J., & Ashford, S. J. (1995). Intra-and interorganizational cooperation:
Toward a research agenda. Academy of Management journal, 38(1), 7-23.
Spitzer, S., & Scull, A. (1977). Privatization and capitalist development: the case of the private
police. Social problems, 25(1), 18-29.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in
shaping public support for policing. Law & society review, 37(3), 513-548.
Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.
Worchel &W. G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp.7-24).
Chicago, IL: Nelson Hall.
Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does procedural
fairness matter?. Criminology, 47(4), 1265-1293.
Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police
legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103-135.
Tankebe, J., Reisig, M. D., & Wang, X. (2016). A multidimensional model of police legitimacy:
A cross-cultural assessment. Law and human behavior, 40(1), 11-22.

151

Tashakkori, A. & Teddlie, C. (1998). Mixed methodology: Combining qualitative and
quantitative approaches. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Thibaut, J. W., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (1997). The psychology of legitimacy: A relational perspective on voluntary
deference to authorities. Personality and social psychology review, 1(4), 323-345.
Tyler, T. R. (2003). Trust within organisations. Personnel review, 32(5), 556-568.
Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2000). Cooperation in groups: Procedural justice, social identity,
and behavioral engagement. Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: Why do people help the police
fight crime in their communities. Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6,
231.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the
Police and Courts. New York: Russell-Sage.
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exercise of legal authority:
Motivating compliance, cooperation, and engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and
Law, 20(1), 78-95.
United States Census Bureau (2014). State & Local Government Employment and
Payroll Data. Retrieved from
http://factfinder.census.gov/faces/tableservices/jsf/pages/productview.xhtml?src=bkmk.
Wakefield, A. (2003). Selling security: The private policing of public space. Portland, OR:
Willan Publishing.
White, A. (2014). "Politics, Economics and Security." In The Handbook of Security, pp. 89-106.
Palgrave Macmillan: UK.
Williams, B., Onsman, A., & Brown, T. (2010). Exploratory factor analysis: A five-step guide
for novices. Australasian Journal of Paramedicine, 8(3), 1-13.
Wolfe, S. E., Nix, J., Kaminski, R., & Rojek, J. (2016). Is the effect of procedural justice on
police legitimacy invariant? Testing the generality of procedural justice and competing
antecedents of legitimacy. Journal of quantitative criminology, 32(2), 253-282.
Wood, J., & Shearing, C. (2013). Imagining security. Devon, UK: Willan Publishing.

152

Yoshida, N. (1999). The taming of the Japanese private security industry. Policing and Society:
An International Journal, 9(3), 241-261.
Zedner, L. (2006). Policing Before and After the Police The Historical Antecedents of
Contemporary Crime Control. British Journal of criminology, 46(1), 78-96.
Zelditch, M. (2001). Theories of Legitimacy. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of
legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 3553). New York: Cambridge University Press.

153