Why do people cooperate with the police and criminal courts? A test of procedural justice theory in 30 countries
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract This article presents a cross‐national test of the portability of procedural justice theory (PJT). Drawing on nationally representative survey data from 30 diverse social, political, and legal contexts across Europe and beyond, we find that the theory travels well across national borders and that its psychological purchase is particularly pronounced in societies where fair policing is considered the norm. First, in most countries, a normative account of public cooperation with the police—grounded in procedural justice and legitimacy—has greater empirical traction than an instrumental account based on effectiveness and fear of crime. Second, although procedural justice consistently emerges as the strongest predictor of police legitimacy, it is especially important in contexts where the police are widely viewed as fair and inclusive authorities—a proxy for their status as a positive group authority. These findings help lay the groundwork for cross‐national extensions of PJT, pointing to the need for further research into the social and institutional conditions that shape its psychological impact.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it