Imagined communities: Reflections on the origin and spread of nationalism

This study explores two issues about police legitimacy. The first issue is the relative importance of police legitimacy in shaping public support of the police and policing activities, compared to the importance of instrumental judgments about (1) the risk that people will be caught and sanctioned for wrongdoing, (2) the performance of the police in fighting crime, and/or (3) the fairness of the distribution of police services. Three aspects of public support for the police are examined: public compliance with the law, public cooperation with the police, and public willingness to support policies that empower the police. The second issue is which judgments about police activity determine people’s views about the legitimacy of the police. This study compares the influence of people’s judgments about the procedural justice of the manner in which the police exercise their authority to the influence of three instrumental judgments: risk, performance, and distributive fairness. Findings of two surveys of New Yorkers show that, first, legitimacy has a strong influence on the public’s reactions to the police, and second, the key antecedent of legitimacy is the fairness of the procedures used by the police. This model applies to both white and minority group residents.

/pdf/the-role-of-procedural-justice-and-legitimacy-in-shaping-26dxgn5ckd.pdf

The Role of Procedural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support for Policing

An integrative social identity model of collective action (SIMCA) is developed that incorporates 3 socio-psychological perspectives on collective action. Three meta-analyses synthesized a total of 182 effects of perceived injustice, efficacy, and identity on collective action (corresponding to these socio-psychological perspectives). Results showed that, in isolation, all 3 predictors had medium-sized (and causal) effects. Moreover, results showed the importance of social identity in predicting collective action by supporting SIMCA's key predictions that (a) affective injustice and politicized identity produced stronger effects than those of non-affective injustice and non-politicized identity; (b) identity predicted collective action against both incidental and structural disadvantages, whereas injustice and efficacy predicted collective action against incidental disadvantages better than against structural disadvantages; (c) all 3 predictors had unique medium-sized effects on collective action when controlling for between-predictor covariance; and (d) identity bridged the injustice and efficacy explanations of collective action. Results also showed more support for SIMCA than for alternative models reflecting previous attempts at theoretical integration. The authors discuss key implications for theory, practice, future research, and further integration of social and psychological perspectives on collective action.

/pdf/toward-an-integrative-social-identity-model-of-collective-1d8ss4nyqs.pdf

Toward an integrative social identity model of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological perspectives

General strain theory (GST) is usually tested by examining the effect of strain on crime. Researchers, however, have little guidance when it comes to selecting among the many hundreds of types of strain and have trouble explaining why only some of them are related to crime. This article builds on GST by describing the characteristics of strainful events and conditions that influence their relationship to crime. Strains are said to be most likely to result in crime when they (1) are seen as unjust, (2) are seen as high in magnitude, (3) are associated with low social control, and (4) create some pressure or incentive to engage in criminal coping. Drawing on these characteristics, it is predicted that some types of strain will not be related to crime, including types that have dominated the research on strain theory, and that others will be related to crime, including types that have been neglected by empirical researchers.

/pdf/building-on-the-foundation-of-general-strain-theory-2rdfoxk5vl.pdf

Building on the Foundation of General Strain Theory: Specifying the Types of Strain Most Likely to Lead to Crime and Delinquency:

Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts

Introduction The Psychology of Social Justice Relative Deprivation Is Justice Important To Peoples Feelings And Attitudes? Distributive Justice Procedural Justice Retributive Justice Behaviorial Reactions To Justice And Injustice Psychological Versus Behavioral Responses to Injustice Behavioral Reactions to Injustice Why Do People Care About Justice? The Nature of the Justice Motive When Does Justice Matter? Social Structural Influences Culture

Social Justice In A Diverse Society

This study examines why the public supports the punishment of rule breakers. It does so within the context of a recently enacted California initiative mandating life in prison for repeat felons (the three strikes law). Antecedents of three aspects of people's reactions to rule breakers are explored : (1) support for the three strikes initiative, (2) support for punitiveness in dealing with rule breakers, and (3) willingness to abandon procedural protections when dealing with potential rule breakers. The results of interviews with members of the public suggest that the widely held view that public punitiveness develops primarily from concerns about crime and the courts and is primarily linked to public views about risk and dangerousness is incorrect. While these factors do influence public feelings, they are not the central reasons underlying public punitiveness. Instead, the source of people's concerns lies primarily in their evaluations of social conditions, including the decline in morality and discipline within the family and increases in the diversity of society. These concerns are about issues of moral cohesion - with people feeling that the quality and extent of social bonds and social consensus has deteriorated in American society

http://middleschoolatsage.weebly.com/uploads/5/2/5/8/5258770/three_strikes_and_you_are_out.pdf

Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers.

This article provides an overview of the context and content of this issue devoted to hate crime. Working definitions of hate crime and hate speech are situated within the broader context of intergroup relations, prejudice, aggression, and law and social policy. Theory and research from social psychology, criminology, and legal studies are utilized to describe this context. We present summaries of the multidisciplinary contributions to this issue and note how these articles emphasize the origins of hate crime, the harm that it creates, and victims' and society's response to hate crime. They also highlight tensions between the First and Fourteenth Amendments of the U.S. Constitution. Finally, we note the interrelationships among these contributions and discuss the policy implications that arise from their analyses.

Understanding the harm of hate crime

Performance-enhancing drug use by elite athletes is a modern sporting and social concern. We applied a long-overdue theoretical framework, perceptual deterrence, to predicting the banned drug-use decisions of 116 elite Australian footballers and soccer players. The strongest influence on athletes' hypothetical decisions to use drugs was their personal moral beliefs and health concerns, each of which also mediated the relationship between drug testing and athletes' decisions to use banned substances. Drug testing had little influence on athletes' imagined drug use decisions, although there are athletes for whom legal sanctions are necessary. The results have important implications for the way in which authorities fund and frame future anti-drug initiatives; particularly the relationship between drug testing and athletes' personal moral beliefs.

Why drug testing in elite sport does not work: Perceptual deterrence theory and the role of personal moral beliefs

Performance-enhancing drug use by elite athletes is a continuing concern within the international sporting community. Different disciplines have endeavoured to address aspects of the problem. Exercise scientists study the effects of drugs on performance and the extent to which they improve performance. The medical profession examines the negative health and physiological consequences of performance-enhancing drug use. Pharmacologists and pharmacists seek improved testing technologies to enable authorities to remain abreast of new drugs which appear on the market. Policy-makers emphasize a legal solution to the problem by directing funds and resources towards drug-testing programs. An important contribution can also be made by employing a psychological analysis. There would be much value in delineating the psychological factors that might operate to deter elite athletes from using performance-enhancing drugs. However, psychologys potential to address the problem appears not to have been optimized. Our primary contributions have been descriptive (e.g., Spence & Gauvin, 1996) or focussed on individual differences in attitudes toward drug use (e.g., Anshel & Russell, 1997; Evans, Weinberg, & Jackson, 1992). Surprisingly few studies have examined specific deterrents of performance-enhancing drug use. The little that has been done has focussed almost exclusively on describing athletes attitudes towards drug testing programs (e.g., Albrecht, Anderson, McGrew, McKeag, & Hough, 1992; Coombs & Ryan, 1990; Goldberg, Elliot, Moe, Kuehl, & Clarke, 1999; Martin & Anshel, 1991). Some studies have addressed other potential deterrents, such as social and moral concerns (Tricker & Connolly, 1997), and drug education programs (Moe, Goldberg, Elliot, MacKinnon, & Cheong, 1999). Clearly there are two major discrepancies in the drug deterrence literature in the sporting context. First, although investigators have independently assessed different sources and forms of deterrence (i.e., drug detection programs, moral beliefs, social concerns, and health education), no research has directly examined the relative effects of these deterrence mechanisms in

Robert J. Boeckmann

Papers

Social Justice In A Diverse Society

Three strikes and you are out, but why? The psychology of public support for punishing rule breakers.

Understanding the harm of hate crime

Why drug testing in elite sport does not work: Perceptual deterrence theory and the role of personal moral beliefs

A new model for understanding performance-enhancing drug use by elite athletes.