Putting the social back in legal socialization: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities

Rick Trinkner, Ellen S. Cohn

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

47 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Traditionally, legal socialization theory and research has been dominated by a cognitive developmental approach. However, more recent work (e.g., Fagan &Tyler, 2005) has used procedural justice to explain the legal socialization process. This article presents 2 studies that expand this approach by testing a procedural justice model of legal socialization in terms of legal and nonlegal authority. In Study 1, participants completed surveys assessing the degree to which they perceived 3 authorities (police officers, parents, and teachers) as procedurally fair, the degree to which they perceived the authorities as legitimate, how cynical they were about laws, and the extent of their rule violation during the past 6 months. Across all 3 authorities, legitimacy and legal cynicism mediated the relation between procedural justice and rule violation. Study 2 examined the model with the same 3 authority types using experimental methods. Participants read 3 scenarios describing an interaction between an adolescent and an authority figure where a rule is enforced. Within each scenario, we manipulated whether the adolescent had a voice and whether the authority enforced the rule impartially. After reading each scenario, participants rated the authority's legitimacy, their cynicism toward the authority's rule, and the likelihood they would violate the rule. Again, legitimacy and rule cynicism mediated the relation between impartiality, voice, and rule violation. In addition, impartiality had a stronger effect in the parent and teacher scenarios, whereas voice had a stronger effect in the police scenario. Results are discussed in terms of expanding legal socialization to nonlegal contexts and applying legal socialization research to prevention and intervention strategies.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)602-617
Number of pages16
JournalLaw and Human Behavior
Volume38
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2014
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Illegitimacy
Socialization
Social Justice
socialization
legitimacy
justice
Police
scenario
socialization research
Research
parents
Reading
socialization theory
Parents
adolescent
Cynicism
Authority
Procedural Justice
Legitimacy
legal theory

Keywords

  • authority
  • delinquency
  • Legal socialization
  • legitimacy
  • procedural justice

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Law
  • Psychiatry and Mental health
  • Psychology(all)
  • Arts and Humanities (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Putting the social back in legal socialization : Procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. / Trinkner, Rick; Cohn, Ellen S.

In: Law and Human Behavior, Vol. 38, No. 6, 01.12.2014, p. 602-617.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

@article{5b6531305dfa4de38aa07e0dde52237d,
title = "Putting the social back in legal socialization: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities",
abstract = "Traditionally, legal socialization theory and research has been dominated by a cognitive developmental approach. However, more recent work (e.g., Fagan &Tyler, 2005) has used procedural justice to explain the legal socialization process. This article presents 2 studies that expand this approach by testing a procedural justice model of legal socialization in terms of legal and nonlegal authority. In Study 1, participants completed surveys assessing the degree to which they perceived 3 authorities (police officers, parents, and teachers) as procedurally fair, the degree to which they perceived the authorities as legitimate, how cynical they were about laws, and the extent of their rule violation during the past 6 months. Across all 3 authorities, legitimacy and legal cynicism mediated the relation between procedural justice and rule violation. Study 2 examined the model with the same 3 authority types using experimental methods. Participants read 3 scenarios describing an interaction between an adolescent and an authority figure where a rule is enforced. Within each scenario, we manipulated whether the adolescent had a voice and whether the authority enforced the rule impartially. After reading each scenario, participants rated the authority's legitimacy, their cynicism toward the authority's rule, and the likelihood they would violate the rule. Again, legitimacy and rule cynicism mediated the relation between impartiality, voice, and rule violation. In addition, impartiality had a stronger effect in the parent and teacher scenarios, whereas voice had a stronger effect in the police scenario. Results are discussed in terms of expanding legal socialization to nonlegal contexts and applying legal socialization research to prevention and intervention strategies.",
keywords = "authority, delinquency, Legal socialization, legitimacy, procedural justice",
author = "Rick Trinkner and Cohn, {Ellen S.}",
year = "2014",
month = "12",
day = "1",
doi = "10.1037/lhb0000107",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "38",
pages = "602--617",
journal = "Law and Human Behavior",
issn = "0147-7307",
publisher = "Springer New York",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Putting the social back in legal socialization

T2 - Procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities

AU - Trinkner, Rick

AU - Cohn, Ellen S.

PY - 2014/12/1

Y1 - 2014/12/1

N2 - Traditionally, legal socialization theory and research has been dominated by a cognitive developmental approach. However, more recent work (e.g., Fagan &Tyler, 2005) has used procedural justice to explain the legal socialization process. This article presents 2 studies that expand this approach by testing a procedural justice model of legal socialization in terms of legal and nonlegal authority. In Study 1, participants completed surveys assessing the degree to which they perceived 3 authorities (police officers, parents, and teachers) as procedurally fair, the degree to which they perceived the authorities as legitimate, how cynical they were about laws, and the extent of their rule violation during the past 6 months. Across all 3 authorities, legitimacy and legal cynicism mediated the relation between procedural justice and rule violation. Study 2 examined the model with the same 3 authority types using experimental methods. Participants read 3 scenarios describing an interaction between an adolescent and an authority figure where a rule is enforced. Within each scenario, we manipulated whether the adolescent had a voice and whether the authority enforced the rule impartially. After reading each scenario, participants rated the authority's legitimacy, their cynicism toward the authority's rule, and the likelihood they would violate the rule. Again, legitimacy and rule cynicism mediated the relation between impartiality, voice, and rule violation. In addition, impartiality had a stronger effect in the parent and teacher scenarios, whereas voice had a stronger effect in the police scenario. Results are discussed in terms of expanding legal socialization to nonlegal contexts and applying legal socialization research to prevention and intervention strategies.

AB - Traditionally, legal socialization theory and research has been dominated by a cognitive developmental approach. However, more recent work (e.g., Fagan &Tyler, 2005) has used procedural justice to explain the legal socialization process. This article presents 2 studies that expand this approach by testing a procedural justice model of legal socialization in terms of legal and nonlegal authority. In Study 1, participants completed surveys assessing the degree to which they perceived 3 authorities (police officers, parents, and teachers) as procedurally fair, the degree to which they perceived the authorities as legitimate, how cynical they were about laws, and the extent of their rule violation during the past 6 months. Across all 3 authorities, legitimacy and legal cynicism mediated the relation between procedural justice and rule violation. Study 2 examined the model with the same 3 authority types using experimental methods. Participants read 3 scenarios describing an interaction between an adolescent and an authority figure where a rule is enforced. Within each scenario, we manipulated whether the adolescent had a voice and whether the authority enforced the rule impartially. After reading each scenario, participants rated the authority's legitimacy, their cynicism toward the authority's rule, and the likelihood they would violate the rule. Again, legitimacy and rule cynicism mediated the relation between impartiality, voice, and rule violation. In addition, impartiality had a stronger effect in the parent and teacher scenarios, whereas voice had a stronger effect in the police scenario. Results are discussed in terms of expanding legal socialization to nonlegal contexts and applying legal socialization research to prevention and intervention strategies.

KW - authority

KW - delinquency

KW - Legal socialization

KW - legitimacy

KW - procedural justice

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84925657573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84925657573&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1037/lhb0000107

DO - 10.1037/lhb0000107

M3 - Article

C2 - 25243981

AN - SCOPUS:84925657573

VL - 38

SP - 602

EP - 617

JO - Law and Human Behavior

JF - Law and Human Behavior

SN - 0147-7307

IS - 6

ER -