Received: 30 January 2019 | Revised: 21 August 2019 | Accepted: 23 August 2019 DOI: 10.1002/jcop.22242
RESEARCH ARTICLE
An examination of the influence of procedurally just strategies on legal cynicism among urban youth experiencing police contact
Meret S. Hofer | Sean R. Womack | Melvin N. Wilson
Department of Psychology, University of Virginia, Charlottesville, Virginia Abstract Adolescents experience more police‐initiated contacts re- Correspondence Meret S. Hofer, Department of Psychology, sulting from relatively minor infractions than any other University of Virginia, 485 McCormick Rd. group, and often these interactions do not result in notable Charlottesville, VA 22904. Email: [email protected] legal consequences. However, such interactions may have long‐term consequences for adolescent perceptions of the Funding information Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of justice system. Using data from the age 15 wave of the Child Health and Human Development Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study, our study (NICHD), Grant/Award Numbers: R01HD36916, R01HD39135, R01HD40421 examines associations between situational and process features of police contact and legal cynicism in adolescence, accounting for demographic characteristics, self‐reported delinquency, neighborhood context, and stop outcome. Relative to youth who experienced only vicarious police contact, youth who had direct or both direct and vicarious police contact reported higher levels of legal cynicism. Youth perceptions of procedural justice were associated with lower legal cynicism. Situational features of police contact such as harsh language and frisking were related to higher legal cynicism. Directions for future research, including the need for longitudinal research on this topic, are discussed.
KEYWORDS adolescents, collective efficacy, legal cynicism, neighborhood vio- lence, police, procedural justice, youth
1 | INTRODUCTION
Although adults have been the predominant focus of systematic investigations of legal attitudes, opinions about the justice system begin to form at an early age (Tyler & Trinker, 2017). Adolescence, in particular, is a critical
J Community Psychol. 2019;1–20. wileyonlinelibrary.com/journal/jcop © 2019 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. | 1 2 | HOFER ET AL. developmental time when experiences with legal authorities shape longer‐term views of the legitimacy of the justice system (Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Hagan, Shedd, & Payne, 2005). In general, research on youth attitudes toward the justice system and its actors indicate that youth espouse more negative views than adults (Hurst & Frank, 2000; Leiber, Nalla, & Farnworth, 1998; Taylor, Turner, Esbensen, & Winfree, 2001). However, the question of how these attitudes are constructed by youth has received limited attention (Sindall, McCarthy, & Brunton‐Smith, 2017). One promising line of research investigates the influence of contact with legal authorities, in particular police, as a mechanism by which youth develop overarching beliefs about the justice system (Leiber et al., 1998; Rusinko, Johnson, & Hornung, 1978; Taylor et al., 2001). National data on police–public contact show that adolescents and young adults aged 16–24 years are more likely to experience contact with the police than any other group. Out of the roughly 53 million U.S. residents that had personal interactions with police in 2015, 16–24 year‐olds accounted for 41.3 percent of interactions (Davis, Whyde, & Langton, 2018). No national data capture broad trends on police contact at earlier ages. However, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting Program provides arrest data for youth under the age of 16, which give some indications about broader contact trends. In 2017, 253,985 youth aged 15 or below were arrested, compared with 583,102 youth 16–18 years of age (Table 38). Among youth under 16, those aged 13–15 made up the vast majority of arrests (Federal Bureau of Investigation, 2017), indicating that while the frequency of police contact is somewhat lower in early adolescence than in later adolescence, it is substantial and merits further examination. Police–youth contact is characterized by several key features. Nationally, adolescents and young adults are more likely to experience police‐initiated contacts than to initiate contact with the police of their own volition (Davis et al., 2018), a trend confirmed by local data (Ayers & Borowsky, 2008; Langton & Durose, 2011; Tyler, Fagan, & Geller, 2014). Moreover, as a result of proactive policing practices characterized by intensive enforcement against low‐level offenses, the vast majority of interactions between police and youth result from relatively minor infractions, such as trespass or other quality‐of‐life laws, that often do not result in notable legal consequences for youth (Fagan, Davies, & Carlis, 2012; Zimring, 2011). Perhaps for this reason, youth are least likely to perceive a street‐stop as having been legitimate compared to other groups (Davis et al., 2018). Perceptions of legitimacy are a corollary of legal cynicism, which describes an evaluation of the justice system and its actors as illegitimate, unresponsive, and ill equipped to ensure public safety (Kirk & Papachristos, 2011). Both lower levels of legitimacy and higher levels of legal cynicism have been associated with decreased trust in and co‐operation with legal authorities and increased criminal behavior (Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Reisig, Wolfe, & Holtfreter, 2011; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). A significant body of work has shown that legal cynicism diminishes police legitimacy, which may hinder the specific type of collaboration and partnership between community members and police that are effective in making neighborhoods safer (Delgado, 2008; Howell, 2009; Nivette, Eisner, Malti, & Ribeaud, 2015). The distinctions between legitimacy and legal cynicism are worth elaborating as the two constructs are highly related. Critically, while legitimacy has been theorized in terms of individual trust and obligation toward an authority and is typically measured by assessing attitudes toward said authority (e.g., police), legal cynicism centers on the internalization of law‐related norms and assesses normative beliefs about the legal system (Trinkner & Cohn, 2014). As such, legal cynicism is a broader construct that taps into overarching, internalized perceptions of the justice system and the extent to which the rule of law is considered binding (Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). Moreover, in adolescence, legal cynicism and legitimacy can be viewed as two dimensions of legal socialization, which includes the broader developmental task of self‐definition in relation to authority figures (Piquero, Fagan, Mulvey, Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005). Legal cynicism and legitimacy are two mechanisms by which we may be able to understand adolescents’ compliance with rules and the law (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Trinkner & Cohn, 2014; Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Huo, 2002), and willingness to assist police (Hinds, 2009). Adolescence is the time in individuals’ lives when experiences with legal authorities, particularly the police, is most likely (Brunson & Weitzer, 2011; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Moreover, the attitudes formed toward those authorities remain relatively stable over time (Piquero et al., 2005). For this reason, it is critical to examine how HOFER ET AL. | 3 young people experience interactions with the police and how such interactions shape lasting views on the justice system.
2 | SITUATIONAL FEATURES OF POLICE CONTACT AND YOUTH’S LEGAL ATTITUDES
Interactions with the police are distinguished by situational features that may impact evaluations of the contact. Such features include whether the contact was experienced directly or vicariously, the process by which the interaction unfolded, and the outcome of the interaction.
2.1 | Direct versus vicarious police contact
Direct police contact, particularly the perceived quality of such contact, impacts evaluations of the police (Nivette et al., 2015; Slocum, Ann Wiley, & Esbensen, 2016; Tyler & Huo, 2002). For example, Nivette et al. (2015) found that youth who experienced a direct encounter with the police reported higher levels of legal cynicism controlling for demographic factors including race as well as youth‐reported delinquency. Yet, contact with the police can also be experienced vicariously through observed police interactions. Research examining the impact of vicarious police contact is limited and has primarily focused on adult samples. However, young people similarly experience the system contacts of family members, neighbors, and peers that may further shape perceptions of the legal system (Brunson & Weitzer, 2009; Gau & Brunson, 2010; Rosenbaum, Schuck, Costello, Hawkins, & Ring, 2005). In fact, vicarious experiences may be a more routine occurrence in youth’s lives than direct police interactions (Gau & Brunson, 2010), and appear to affect perceptions of policing substantially (Hurst, Frank, & Browning, 2000). A perhaps surprising finding among both adults and adolescents is that vicarious experiences of police contact can be potentially more impactful on negative attitudes toward police than direct experiences (Hurst & Frank, 2000; Rosenbaum et al., 2005). For example, Rosenbaum et al. (2005) found that exposure to vicarious, but not direct police contact predicted changes in negative attitudes toward police over the course of a year. Notably, while the potentially divergent effects of direct andvicariouspolicecontacthavebeenexaminedinrelationto attitudes about police, the relationship between types of police contact and broader evaluations of the justice system, including legal cynicism, have lagged behind. A recent study by Fine et al. (2016) confirms theimportanceofinvestigating the relative influence of direct and vicarious police contact onwiderassessmentsofthejusticesystem.Inthisstudy,even after accounting for direct experiences with police, adolescents whose peers were arrested reported more negative attitudes toward the broader justice system than those who were not exposed to a peer’sarrest. Previous research confirms the potential for vicarious police contact to be an impactful experience in the development of broader views of the justice system; however, no studies that we are aware of have examined the impact of type of police contact on levels of legal cynicism directly. This study will examine the relative influence of both direct and vicarious police contact on legal cynicism while accounting for other situational features of the police interaction.
2.2 | Procedurally just policing
Another factor that influences an individual’s attitudes toward the law is the use of fair procedures. Procedural justice theory has been offered as one explanation for why people are willing to co‐operate and respect an authority’s power, arguing that community members are more likely to respect and co‐operate with an authority if the processes by which the authority operates are perceived as just and fair (Tyler, 2000; Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Fagan, 2008). Compliance with authorities is therefore “powerfully influenced by people’s subjective judgments about the fairness of the procedures through which the police and the courts exercise their authority” 4 | HOFER ET AL.
(Tyler, 2003, p 283). Several dimensions of police contact shape individual’s perceptions of fairness of police procedures, including (a) the opportunity to have a voice in an interaction; (b) neutral and consistent decision‐ making by police, (c) trust in the motivations behind police actions, and (d) and overall respectful treatment (Tyler, 1990; Tyler & Blader, 2003; Tyler & Huo, 2002). Police actions contrary to promoting these dimensions of procedural justice have been found to undermine perceptions of police legitimacy and acceptance of police authority. For example, Tyler et al. (2014) used the broad construct of stop intrusion, which includes disrespectful treatment, harsh or insulting language, searches of bags, patting/frisking, threats of force and actual use of force among other situational features of a police stop (pp 782–784) to show that such “intrusive” features of police stops undermine legitimacy (Tyler et al., 2014). While much of the research on procedural justice has focused on its impact on legitimacy attitudes, research examining the relationship between procedural justice and legal cynicism is limited (Carr, Napolitano, & Keating, 2007; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). Overall trends, however, seem to indicate that greater perceptions of procedural justice lead to lower levels of legal cynicism. Most recently, Trinkner and Cohn (2014) found a causal relationship between procedural justice and legal cynicism among 11th graders. Specifically, when provided vignettes about interactions with police officers, youth randomly assigned to a condition where the officer gave their character a voice in the interaction rated the officer as having more legitimacy and rated themselves as having lower levels of legal cynicism than youth randomly assigned to a condition where the officer did not give their character a voice (Trinkner and Cohn (2014). The existing evidence suggests that incorporating procedurally just strategies in encounters with youth may improve attitudes and behaviors toward police, create opportunities to enhance police legitimacy and improve overall perception of the justice system, ultimately resulting in lower levels of legal cynicism (Hinds, 2007; Lee, Steinberg, & Piquero, 2010). This study adapts Tyler et al.’s (2014) concept of stop intrusion by probing the association between youth’s legal cynicism and three categories of intrusion that could be considered particularly contrary to procedurally just policing within the context of police–youth contact that typically occurs for low level offenses: Harsh language (including racial slurs and threats of force), frisking (including physical searches of person and property), and use of force.
2.3 | Stop outcome
Another factor that may impact evaluations of legitimacy is the outcome of a police stop. A substantial literature has found that communities with lower socioeconomic status and communities of color experience a disproportionate and intensive police presence (Fagan, Geller, Davies, & West, 2010; Hagan et al., 2005; Schulhofer, Tyler, & Huq, 2011; Zimring, 2011). Moreover, there is evidence that aggressive enforcement curbing relatively minor infractions is characterized by high error rates. For example, police–public interactions resulting from such policing strategies do not typically result in arrest, ticketing, or the seizure of illegal items (Alpert, Macdonald, & Dunham, 2005; Fagan, 2010). By extension, outcomes of police contacts that suggest that a stop may have been unfounded (e.g., no action is taken) could undermine perceptions of the legitimacy and justness of the contact. In attempting to isolate the associations between aspects of procedurally just policing and legal cynicism, this study accounts for the influence of stop outcome, which may contribute to legal cynicism.
2.4 | Individual‐level influences on youth’s legal attitudes
It has been well‐established that individual‐level characteristics, such as age, race, and involvement in delinquent activities substantially impact perceptions of the police and legal attitudes more broadly. In general, individuals who identify as racial minorities tend to hold more negative views of police compared to their White counterparts (Peck, 2015) and experience higher levels of legal cynicism (Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998), findings that extend across age (Brunson & Weitzer, 2009; Leiber et al., 1998). Overall, youth attitudes toward the police are more negative than those of adults (Hurst & Frank, 2000; Leiber et al., 1998; Taylor et al., 2001), and HOFER ET AL. | 5 involvement in delinquency is a strong predictor of legal cynicism (Nivette et al., 2015; Trinkner & Cohn, 2014). For example, Trinkner and Cohn (2014) found that youth who rated themselves as having higher levels of legal cynicism also endorsed higher levels of delinquent behaviors. Many studies recognize sex as an important potential predictor of legal attitudes, and among adults, women have been shown to report lower legal cynicism than men (Kirk & Papachristos, 2011). However, only limited work has systematically examined sex differences in youth’s legal attitudes, focusing primarily on perceptions of police. Results are mixed. Studies have found male youth endorse overall more negative views of police, report higher rates of mistreatment by police, and express more fear of police than female youth (Brunson & Miller, 2006; Nordberg, Twis, Stevens, & Hatcher, 2018; Taylor et al., 2001). Yet, other studies have found no differences between the sexes (Griffiths & Winfree, 1982) or even that female youth hold less favorable views about the trustworthiness and effectiveness of police (Hurst & Frank, 2000).
2.5 | Macro‐level influences on police contact
Police contact does not occur in a vacuum—it takes place in ecological settings characterized by structural characteristics and collective experiences that shape individual expectations of police and interpretations of officers’ behaviors. In general, better neighborhood conditions have been associated with more positive attitudes toward the police and lower legal cynicism (Jesilow, Meyer, & Nazi Namazzi, 1995; Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Sampson & Bartusch, 1998). For example, perceptions of neighborhood safety and collective efficacy have been associated with higher confidence in police (Cao, Frank, & Cullen, 1996; Reisig & Parks, 2000; Schafer, Huebner, & Bynum, 2003) and lower legal cynicism (Kirk & Papachristos, 2011). At the same time, perceptions of neighborhood disorder may negatively impact perceptions of safety and undermine confidence in the police (Brick, Taylor, & Esbensen, 2009; Cao et al., 1996; Hurst & Frank, 2000; Reisig & Parks, 2000). Moreover, individuals residing in areas characterized by concentrated disadvantage or high crime are typically more likely to experience a prominent police presence and have interactions with police (Terrill & Reisig, 2003). Interactions with police in such neighborhoods are often evaluated as less satisfactory (Reisig & Parks, 2000) and perceived to be more negative and coercive (Smith, 1986; Terrill & Reisig, 2003; Weitzer, 1999). Overall, neighborhood context appears to have a substantial, complex influence on attitudes toward the police. It is critical to account for the influences of such collective experiences on perceptions of police contact and broader beliefs about the justice system.
3 | RATIONALE
The disproportionate exposure of adolescents to police may result in high levels of legal cynicism that meaningfully frame individuals’ understanding of the legitimacy of the legal system into adulthood. However, the nature and impact of police contact on youth younger than 16 has received only limited attention. Our study expands the literature on police–youth contact in early adolescence by investigating the trends in direct and vicarious police contact as well as the influence of situational, process, and outcome factors of police contact on legal cynicism. We examine data from the age 15 assessment of the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study (FFCWS) to gain a better understanding of how direct and vicarious police contact influence adolescents’ legal cynicism. Based on procedural justice theory, we examine the specific features of police interactions that may protect against the adverse influence of routine police exposure on youth’s legal cynicism. To discern the influence of situational aspects of police contact on adolescents’ cynical beliefs about the justice system from other factors that have been linked to perceptions of the legal system, this study accounts for demographic characteristics, self‐reported delinquency, stop outcome, neighborhood violence, and neighborhood collective efficacy. Based on previous research, our study hypothesizes that (H1) situational features of the police interaction will be associated with youth’s legal cynicism after accounting for individual and neighborhood effects as well as stop outcome. Specifically, we expect that youth’s perceptions of procedural justice will be associated with lower legal 6 | HOFER ET AL. cynicism while stops characterized by various forms of intrusion (i.e., harsh language, frisking or use of force) will be associated with higher legal cynicism. We also hypothesize that (H2) demographic characteristics and self‐reported delinquency will be significantly associated with legal cynicism. Specifically, we expect African American and Hispanic youth to experience more legal cynicism than White youth. Youth endorsing higher rates of delinquency will also experience higher legal cynicism. Finally, we hypothesize that (H3) neighborhood characteristics along the dimensions of violence and collective efficacy will be associated with legal cynicism. Specifically, we expect that youth living in more violent neighborhoods will have higher levels of legal cynicism, while youth living in neighborhoods characterized by higher levels of collective efficacy will have lower levels of legal cynicism.
4 | METHODS
4.1 | Data and sample
Participants were a subsample of 2,406 adolescents and their caregivers selected from the FFCWS. The FFCWS is a longitudinal national cohort study of 4,898 families in 20 large cities (populations over 200,000) across the U.S. Birth mothers and fathers were recruited to participate in the study just after birth. The FFCWS oversampled unmarried parents who were at an increased likelihood to experience relationship instability and poverty (Reichman, Teitler, Garfinkel, & McLanahan, 2001). Data were collected from primary caregivers (usually the child’s mother) and, when available the target youth’s biological father at birth, 1, 3, 5, 9, and 15 years and from the target youth at ages 9 and 15. The present study utilized data collected from the age 15 primary caregiver and target youth interviews. Because the primary goal of our study was to examine the impact of the process and outcome of a police stop on legal cynicism, we omitted all youth who reported having no direct or vicarious contact with the police (n = 1,185). In addition, due to the longitudinal nature of the FFCWS, attrition was an issue. Of the 4,663 families who were eligible to participate in the initial wave (Blendheim‐Thoman Center for research on Child Wellbeing, 2018), 26.7% (n = 1,307) were missing all study variables from the age 15 assessment. T‐tests revealed that compared to youth who had contact with the police, youth omitted due to having no police contact had slightly higher levels of family income at age 15 (t2,209 = 3.84, p < .001, d = .14), slightly higher levels of primary caregiver education at 15 (t2,294.4 = 3.15, p < .01, d = .11), lower levels of target youth delinquent behaviors (t3,383.6 = −17.93, p < .001, d = .51), lived in neighborhoods characterized by higher levels of collective efficacy (t2,141.1 = 3.25, p < .01, d = .01) and lower levels of violence (t3,111.4 = −6.89, p < .001, d = .22), and had lower levels of legal cynicism 2 (t2,071.1 = −12.63, p < .001, d = .46). In addition, χ tests revealed that youth who had police contact were more likely to be male, more likely to be African American and less likely to be Hispanic. Thus, our sample has a higher sociodemographic risk relative to the entire FFCWS sample, but is consistent with previous indicators of police contact (Crutchfield, Skinner, Haggerty, McGlynn, & Catalano, 2012).
4.2 | Measures 4.2.1 | Demographic covariates
Target youth sex (baseline) was coded as male = 0, female = 1. Target youth race was categorized as White, Black, Hispanic, or Other based on the mother’s report at baseline. Primary caregivers reported their highest level of education at the age 15 assessment. Education was coded such that less than high school = 1, high school diploma/ GED = 2, some college/technical school = 3, and college graduate or higher = 4. Finally, we controlled for the primary‐caregiver reported annual household income at the age 15 assessment. HOFER ET AL. | 7
4.2.2 | Police stop variables
Target youth contact with police was measured using three questions assessing direct and vicarious police contact. Direct contact was assessed by asking the target youth, “Ever been stopped by the police?” Vicarious police contact was assessed by asking the target youth, “Ever seen someone stopped by police in your neighborhood?” and “Ever seen someone stopped by police at school?”. Target youth that endorsed witnessing someone get stopped by the police were determined to have vicarious police contact unless they also endorsed having been stopped by the police themselves. In that case, target youth were determined to have both direct and vicarious police contact. If the target youth did not endorse any of the three items, they were assumed to have had no contact with police and were omitted from the study. Target youth who had direct, vicarious, or both types of contact with the police (n = 2,406) were asked five follow‐up questions about particular situational features of the stop they experienced or observed. Target youth responded yes or no to: “Officer frisked/patted you/them down during incident”; “Officer searched your/their bags or pockets during incident”; “Officer used harsh language during incident”; “Officer used racial slurs during incident”; “Officer threatened physical force during incident”; “Officer used physical force during incident”. Three binary variables assessing youth experiences of frisking, harsh language, and physical force, were created based on responses to these items. Target youth received a score of 1 on the frisking item if they endorsed that the officers frisked/patted them down or searched their bags or pockets and received as score of 0 if they did not endorse that the officers frisked them or searched their bags. Participants received a score of 1 on the harsh language item if they endorsed that the officer used harsh language, racial slurs, or threatened physical force, while participants who did not endorse any of these items received a score of 0. Finally, youth received a 1 for the physical force item if the target youth endorsed that the officer used physical force. In terms of outcome, target youth were asked if anything illegal was found during the stop. In addition, target youth were asked if they or the person being stopped were issued a warning, ticket, were taken to the police station, or if no action was taken by officers. Finally, target youth that had experienced a direct or vicarious police stop were asked three questions about their perceptions of procedural justice during police stops. Specifically, target youth were asked, “How often police clearly explained why they stopped you/them?”; “How often police treated you/them with dignity and courtesy?”; “How often police respected your/their rights?” Responses options were never, sometimes, or often. The three items were summed to create a procedural justice score, which taps into the politeness/respectfulness and benevolence/ trustworthiness factors of procedural justice (Tyler, 2006). The procedural justice items had acceptable internal reliability (α = .72).
4.2.3 | Target youth delinquency
Target youth delinquency was assessed using 13 self‐report items adapted from the National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent Health (Harris et al., 2009) The delinquency scale assessed how frequently target youth engaged in antisocial behaviors including vandalism, physical aggression, theft, and selling drugs. Response options to each item were Never (0), 1 or 2 times (1), 3 or 4 times (2), 5 or more times (3). Cronbach’s α indicate acceptable internal reliability (α = .75).
4.2.4 | Neighborhood violence
Neighborhood violence was assessed using three questions that asked how frequently the primary caregiver witnessed someone get hit/slapped/punched, attacked with a weapon, and shot at in their neighborhood in the previous year. Response options were never (0), once (1), 2 to 3 times (2), 4 to 10 times (3), more than 50 times (4). A neighborhood violence score was created by summing the responses from the three items. Cronbach’s α for the neighborhood violence score indicate acceptable internal reliability (α = .71). 8 | HOFER ET AL.
4.2.5 | Collective efficacy
Neighborhood collective efficacy was assessed using a 10‐item measure adopted from the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (Sampson, Raudenbush, & Earls, 1997). The collective efficacy measure assessed primary caregivers’ perceptions of informal social control (five items) and cohesion and trust in the neighborhood (five items). A sample item from the informal social control scale is, “Neighbors would get involved if children spray paint on buildings with graffiti.” Response options for the informal social control items were very likely (0), somewhat likely (1), not very likely (2), very unlikely (3). A sample item from the trust and cohesion scale is “This is a close‐knit neighborhood.” Response options for the trust and cohesion scale were strongly agree (0), somewhat agree (1), somewhat disagree (2), strongly disagree (3). Responses were reverse‐coded so that higher scores indicated higher collective efficacy. Consistent with previous research using the FFCWS data (Burdette, Wadden, & Whitaker, 2006; Ma & Grogan‐Kaylor, 2017) the informal social control and trust and cohesion items were then summed together to create a total collective efficacy score. Cronbach alphas indicate that the collective efficacy score had good internal reliability (α = .86).
4.2.6 | Legal cynicism
Legal cynicism was measured using four self‐reported items administered to target youth. The legal cynicism scale was adopted from questions used in the Pathways to Desistance Study (Harris et al., 2009). Sample items include “There are no right or wrong ways to make money and “Laws are meant to be broken.” Response options were strongly agree (0), somewhat agree (1), somewhat disagree (2), and strongly disagree (3). The legal cynicism scale was created by summing together the four items. Items were reverse‐coded so that higher scores indicated higher levels of legal cynicism. Cronbach’s α were lower than .7 (α = .67), which may be a product of the relatively small number of questions. However, the mean inter‐item correlation was in the acceptable range (r = .24) as per recommendations by Briggs and Cheek (1986).
4.3 | Data analysis
Before testing our hypotheses, we examined descriptive statistics for all study variables and correlations between the continuous study variables. To test the study hypotheses, a series of general linear models (analysis of covariance) were fit with legal cynicism as the outcome variable (Hox, Moerbeek, & Schoot, 2017). Model 1 included only demographic control variables (target youth sex, target youth race, primary caregiver income, and household income). Model 2 added neighborhood characteristics to the model. Model 3 added the self‐reported delinquency score to examine the impact of target youth delinquent behaviors on legal cynicism. Model 4 added the type of police contact variable (direct, vicarious, or both) to the model. Finally, model 5 included the police contact variables (stop intrusion, anything illegal found, stop outcome, procedural justice). Significant effects of categorical variables were further explored using the Holm–Bonferroni method, which controls the family‐wise error rate and 2 reduces the likelihood of making a type 2 error. Effect sizes were calculated for each model using η statistics as per recommendations by Cohen (1988). All analyses were conducted using R version 3.5.3 (R Core Team, 2018). Missing data were handled using multiple imputation by chained equations (MICE) with 20 imputations and 20 iterations using the “mice” package version 3.3.0 in R (Buuren & Groothuis‐Oudshoorn, 2010). MICE assumes that missing data are missing at random (the probability of missingness is not dependent on unobserved variables) and operates by running a series of regression models where each variable with missing data is iteratively regressed onto all the other variables in the data set to generate the most likely missing value (Azur, Stuart, Frangakis, & Leaf, 2011). MICE is a flexible option for handling missing data, including continuous, binary, and ordered or unordered categorical variables. In the HOFER ET AL. | 9 present study, raw data were imputed before generating any scale scores. Results from the general linear models were replicated using the original nonimputed data and are available upon request.
5 | RESULTS
5.1 | Descriptive statistics and intercorrelations
Means and standard deviations for all study variables are presented in Table 1. The majority of the primary caregivers in the study had at least a high school education (82%) and 61% had some post‐high‐school education. The median income for the sample was $40,000. Approximately five percent (n = 124) of the youth in the study experienced only direct contact with the police and 33 percent (n = 794) of the youth experienced both direct and vicarious police contact. The remaining youth (n = 1,844; 62%) experienced only vicarious contact. In terms of stop outcome, 79 percent of direct encounters with police resulted in a warning or no action being taken while 33 percent of vicarious police interactions resulted in no action or a warning. Only 13 percent of direct police interactions resulted in a trip to the police station compared to 43 percent of the vicarious interactions. In the direct contact only group, only two (2%) youth reported that something illegal was found during the police stop, while 316 (21%) of the youth in the vicarious only contact group reported that something illegal was found during the stop. See Table 2 for stop outcome variables by type of police contact. Intercorrelations revealed weak to modest bivariate relationships between the continuous study variables (see Table 31). There was also a modest negative correlation between legal cynicism and procedural justice (r = −.31, p < .001), indicating that youth who reported higher levels of procedural justice in their police interaction had lower levels of legal cynicism. Legal cynicism was also modestly correlated with self‐reported delinquency (r = .39, p < .001), suggesting that higher levels of delinquency were associated with higher levels of legal cynicism. There was a significant but weak correlation between procedural justice and delinquency (r = −.10, p < .001), suggesting that more delinquent youth reported lower levels of procedural justice.
5.2 | Results from general linear models
The results from all of the general linear models are presented in Table 4.
5.2.1 | Model 1: demographic covariates
In model 1, target youth sex, target youth race, household income, and primary caregiver education were all significantly associated with target youths’ legal cynicism scores. Specifically, male youth had higher scores relative 2 to female youth (F1, 2,399 = 39.13, p < .001, ηp = .02). In addition, consistent with expectations, there were 2 significant differences by youth’s race (F3, 2,399 = 27.45 p < .001, ηp = .03). Contrasts revealed that relative to White youth, Black, Hispanic, and Other youth had significantly higher legal cynicism scores (F1, 2,399 = 72.50,
F1, 2399 = 21.77, F1, 2,399 = 40.32, respectively, p < .001). In addition, Black youth had higher legal cynicism scores than Hispanic youth (F1, 2,399 = 15.15, p < .001). Higher levels of family income and greater primary caregiver education were associated with lower levels of legal cynicism (F1, 2,399 = 16.46 and F1, 2,399 = 20.93, respectively, p < .001). The effect size of race was small, explaining approximately 3 percent of the variance in legal cynicism.
1Correlations using the imputed and original data are presented in Table 3. The correlations presented in‐text are using the imputed data. 10 | HOFER ET AL.
TABLE 1 Descriptive statistics of study variables
Descriptive statistics of continuous variables
Original data (before imputation) Imputed data Variable name Mean (SD) Range Number missing (%) Mean (SD) Primary caregiver education 2.60 (0.97) 1–4 13 (0.54) 2.60 (0.97) Income $57,727 $0.00–$999,999 27 (1.12) $57,774 ($61,742) ($61,754) Neighborhood danger 0.60 (1.41) 0–12 16 (0.67) 0.59 (1.41) Collective efficacy 22.21 (6.44) 0–30 319 (13.26) 21.85 (6.56) Youth delinquency 1.77 (2.76) 0–27 15 (0.62) 1.80 (2.82) Procedural justice score 3.77 (1.73) 0–6 95 (3.95) 3.76 (1.73) Legal cynicism 5.05 (3.43) 0–18 22 (0.91) 5.05 (3.43) Descriptive statistics of categorical variables Variable name N (%) Number missing (%) N (%) Target youth sex – male 1,307 (54.32) 0 (0) 1,307 (54.32) Target youth sex – female 1,099 (45.68) 1,099 (45.68) Target youth race – White 379 (15.75) 118 (4.90) 396 (16.45) Target youth race – Black 1,191 (49.50) 1,249 (51.91) Target youth race – Hispanic 544 (22.61) 575 (23.90) Target youth race – other 174 (7.23) 186 (7.73) Police contact – direct 124 (5.15) 0 (0) 124 (5.15) Police contact – vicarious 1,488 (61.85) 1,488 (61.85) Police contact – both 794 (33.00) 794 (33.00) Anything illegal found (Yes) 329 (13.67) 94 (3.91) 347 (14.42) Anything illegal found (No) 1,983 (82.42) 2,059 (85.58) Officer actions – frisked 1,331 (55.32) 0 (0) 1,331 (55.32) Officer actions – harsh language 459 (19.08) 459 (19.08) Officer actions – physical force 561 (23.32) 561 (23.32) Stop outcome – no action taken 460 (19.12) 158 (6.57) 482 (20.03) Stop outcome – warning 696 (28.93) 733 (30.47) Stop outcome – ticket 396 (16.46) 436 (18.12) Stop outcome – police station 696 (28.93) 755 (31.38)
5.2.2 | Model 2: Neighborhood characteristics
In model 2, neighborhood violence and collective efficacy were included as predictors of legal cynicism in addition to the demographic covariates. Contrary to hypotheses, neither neighborhood violence nor collective efficacy were associated with legal cynicism scores (F1, 2,397 = 3.72 and F1, 2,397 = .09, respectively, p > .05).
5.2.3 | Model 3: Target youth delinquency
After accounting for the demographic covariates and neighborhood characteristics, target youth reporting higher 2 levels of delinquency had higher legal cynicism scores (F3, 2,396 = 352.86, p < .001, ηp = .13). The effect size of self‐ reported delinquency was medium‐large, explaining approximately 13% of the variance in legal cynicism. HOFER ET AL. | 11
TABLE 2 Stop outcome by type of police contact
No action Taken to police Something illegal found? taken Warning Ticket station (Yes) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) n (%) 1. Direct contact only (n = 124) 54 (44) 44 (35) 10 (8) 16 (13) 2 (2) 2. Vicarious contact only 143 (10) 346 (23) 355 (24) 644 (43) 316 (21) (n = 1,488) 3. Both direct and vicarious 285 (36) 343 (43) 71 (9) 95 (12) 29 (4) contact (n = 794)
5.2.4 | Model 4: Type of police contact
The type of police contact youth experienced (direct, vicarious, or both) was included in model 4 in addition to demographic covariates, neighborhood characteristics, and target youth delinquency. There were small but 2 significant differences in legal cynicism by type of police contact (F2, 2,394 = 23.96, p < .001, ηp = .02). A Holm–Bonferroni comparison revealed that youth who experienced both direct and vicarious police contact had higher levels of legal cynicism than youth who experienced only vicarious contact (F1, 2,394 = 46.96, p < .001). In addition, youth who experienced only direct contact had marginally higher levels of legal cynicism than youth who experienced only vicarious contact (F1, 2,394 = 4.98, p = .051). See Table 5 for mean levels of legal cynicism by type of police contact.
5.2.5 | Model 5: Stop procedure and outcome
There was a very small but significant effect of whether or not something illegal was found during the stop (F1, 2 2,386 = 5.19, p = .023, ηp = .002) such that if something illegal was found, youth reported lower levels of legal 2 cynicism. With regard to stop procedure, youth who reported being frisked (F1, 2,386 = 4.16, p = .042, ηp = .002) or 2 that the officer used harsh language during the stop (F1, 2,386 = 14.31, p < .001, ηp = .01) had higher levels of legal cynicism, but the effects were very small. Use of physical force was not significantly associated with legal cynicism 2 (F1, 2,386 = 0.38, p > .05, ηp = .00) Consistent with hypotheses, higher levels of reported procedural justice were 2 associated with lower levels of legal cynicism (F1, 2,386 = 141.84, p < .001, ηp = .06). The effect of procedural justice was medium, explaining about 6% of the variance in legal cynicism.
TABLE 3 Intercorrelations between continuous study variables
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 1. Primary caregiver education − .370*** −.130*** .162*** −.068** .124*** −.146***
2. Income .371*** ‐ −.167*** .250*** −.114*** .192*** −.182*** 3. Neighborhood danger ‐.129*** −.167*** ‐ −.312*** .086*** −.094*** .095*** 4. Collective efficacy .160*** .250*** −.308*** ‐ −.013 .110*** −.074*** 5. Target youth delinquency −.072*** −.112*** .085*** −.008 ‐ −.099*** .379*** 6. Procedural justice score .127*** .194*** −.096*** .120*** −.098*** ‐ −.311*** 7. Legal cynicism −.144*** −.181*** .093*** −.082*** .388*** −.307*** ‐ Note: Correlation coefficients below the diagonal are from the imputed data. Coefficients presented above the diagonal are from the original data **indicates p < .01. ***indicates p < .001 12 | HOFER ET AL.
TABLE 4 Results from general linear models
Degrees of freedom Model adjusted 2 2 F‐value Numerator | Denominator p‐value ηp R Model 1: Demographic variables only 0.083 Target youth sex 39.13 1 | 2,399 <.001 .016 Target youth race 27.45 3 | 2,399 <.001 .033 Primary caregiver education 20.93 1 | 2,399 <.001 .009 Household income 16.46 1 | 2,399 <.001 .007 Model 2: Add neighborhood 0.084 characteristics Target youth sex 39.39 1 | 2,397 <.001 .016 Target youth race 25.65 3 | 2,397 <.001 .031 Primary caregiver education 19.12 1 | 2,397 <.001 .008 Household income 14.15 1 | 2,397 <.001 .006 Neighborhood violence 3.72 1 | 2,397 .054 .002 Collective efficacy 0.09 1 | 2,397 .767 .000
Model 3: Add self‐reported delinquency 0.202 Target youth sex 19.12 1 | 2,396 <.001 .008 Target youth race 21.81 3 | 2,396 <.001 .027 Primary caregiver education 15.28 1 | 2,396 <.001 .006 Household income 7.19 1 | 2,396 .007 .003 Neighborhood violence 0.55 1 | 2,396 .459 .000 Collective efficacy 1.34 1 | 2,396 .247 .001 Target youth delinquency 352.86 1 | 2,396 <.001 .128 Model 4: Add type of police contact .217 Target youth sex 7.82 1 | 2,394 .005 .003 Target youth race 21.28 3 | 2,394 <.001 .026 Primary caregiver education 14.64 1 | 2,394 <.001 .006 Household income 6.51 1 | 2,394 .011 .003 Neighborhood violence 0.65 1 | 2,394 .419 .000 Collective efficacy 1.47 1 | 2,394 .225 .001 Target youth delinquency 247.45 1 | 2,394 <.001 .094 Type of police contact (direct, 23.96 2 | 2,394 <.001 .020 vicarious, or both) Model 5: Add situational features and outcome variables 0.289 Target youth sex 10.22 1 | 2,386 .001 .004 Target youth race 10.27 3 | 2,386 <.001 .013 Primary caregiver education 8.85 1 | 2,386 .003 .004 Household income 1.34 1 | 2,386 .246 .001 Neighborhood violence 0.07 1 | 2,386 .787 .000 Collective efficacy 0.26 1 | 2,386 .611 .000 Target youth delinquency 171.40 1 | 2,386 <.001 .067 Type of police contact (direct, 41.03 2 | 2,386 <.001 .033 vicarious, or both) Officer frisked 4.16 1 | 2,386 .042 .002 Officer used harsh language 14.31 1 | 2,386 <.001 .006 Officer used physical force 0.38 1 | 2,386 .540 .000 Anything illegal found 5.19 1 | 2,386 .023 .002 Stop outcome 0.96 3 | 2,386 .412 .001 Procedural justice 141.84 1 | 2,386 <.001 .056 HOFER ET AL. | 13
6 | DISCUSSION
The goals of the present study were to examine the prevalence of direct and vicarious police contact among urban adolescents, examine associations between individual, demographic, and neighborhood characteristics and legal cynicism, and understand how situational features of police contact are associated with youths’ cynical beliefs about the broader justice system. Overall, results indicate that police contact is a common occurrence in the lives of urban adolescents, and appears to be an important factor associated with youth legal cynicism.
6.1 | Descriptive Trends
Our analyses show that over three quarters of youth who completed the age 15 assessment experienced direct or vicarious contact with police, and of those over a third had direct contact, highlighting the prevalence of exposure to legal authorities among urban adolescents. Consistent with previous research, males were more likely than females to have direct or vicarious experiences with the police and Black youth were more likely than White youth to have direct contact (Crutchfield et al., 2012). Interesting trends emerged in the outcomes of police–youth contact. Approximately half of the police interactions resulted in no action or a warning by police; however, there were substantial differences in the outcomes of direct versus vicarious interactions. Specifically, over three quarters of direct encounters with police resulted in a warning or no action by officers, while only a third of vicarious police encounters resulted in a warning or no action. In addition, compared to direct encounters, vicarious encounters were nearly four times more likely to result in a trip to the police station and almost seven times more likely to involve the detection of an illegal item. That the overwhelming majority of direct police encounters in the present study did not result in a legal penalty(aticketoratriptothepolicestation)ortheseizureofan illegal item supports prior research indicating that urbanyouthmaybeatadisproportionatelikelihoodtoexperience direct contact with the law due to aggressive enforcement of lower‐level offenses.
6.2 | Situational, process, and outcome factors
Consistent with the first hypothesis and previous research, stops that involved higher levels of intrusion and lower levels of procedural justice were associated with higher levels of legal cynicism (Carr et al., 2007; Tyler et al., 2014). While the correlational nature of the present study prohibits the examination of causal relationships between procedural justice and legal cynicism, and it is possible that youth who have higher legal cynicism are more likely to perceive police interactions as procedurally unjust, experimental research has found a causal relationship between procedural justice and legal cynicism (Trinkner & Cohn, 2014). Despite the correlational nature of the present study, the observed associations between procedural justice and stop intrusion and legal cynicism extend previous findings from the laboratory (Trinkner & Cohn, 2014) to the “real world” and quantify qualitative observations (Carr et al., 2007).
TABLE 5 Mean legal cynicism score by type of police encounter
Both direct and vicarious Direct interaction Vicarious Pairwise interaction (a) only (b) interaction only (c) comparisons Legal cynicism score 6.34 5.23 4.35 a>c b>c* a=b Note: The pairwise comparison between the both group and vicarious only was significant at p < .001. *Indicates that the difference between the direct only and vicarious only groups was significant at p < .1. 14 | HOFER ET AL.
Our results indicate only a marginal difference in legal cynicism by type of police contact. Specifically, the mean differences in legal cynicism for youth who experienced only direct and only vicarious police contact were nonsignificant, while youth who experienced both vicarious and direct police contact had slightly higher levels of legal cynicism. The relatively small effect size of interaction type on legal cynicism in conjunction with the moderate effect size of procedural justice may indicate that the situational factors of police contact are more strongly related to youth’s attitudes toward the law than whether a stop was experienced directly or witnessed vicariously. That youth who experienced both direct and vicarious contact had higher levels of legal cynicism than youth who experienced only vicarious contact could beinterpretedinacoupleofways.First,thispatterningofresultsmayindicatean additive effect of experiencing multiple police contacts, regardless of type. For example, having multiple interactions with the police, whether directly or vicariously, may increase the sheer likelihood of witnessing an interaction characterized by lower levels of procedural justice, which in turn could lead tohigherlegalcynicism.Unfortunately,sinceourdatadonot provide information about the frequency of police contact, we are unable to be confident in this interpretation. A second possibility is that the differences in legal cynicism by type ofcontactarerelatedtotheparticularparametersthatdefine each type of interaction. Our data provide some support for this interpretation. Specifically, while direct interactions with police were characterized by limited action by police and the vast majority of instances did not involve the discovery of illegal items, vicarious contacts typically were experienced asmoreserious.Itmaybethatyouthmorelikelytoexperience direct contact with police reside in neighborhoods characterized by more serious criminal activity that resulted in police action. In this case, direct contact with police may be a collateral effect resulting from an increased or more aggressive police presence, that exposes youth to police for low‐level offenses that do not present a substantial threat to public safety. Such trivial direct encounters with policemayhaveanespeciallynegativeimpactonyouth’sperceptionsofthe legitimacy of police or the justice system as a whole when juxtaposed with more serious vicarious encounters, which may be perceived as more legitimate stops. The null effect of stop outcome on cynicism confirms previous work emphasizing the importance of the process of the interaction (Engel, 2005; Tyler & Folger, 1980). That is, an individual’s perception of the law is more influenced by assessments of procedural justice than the contact outcome. However, it is possible that the null effects may be explained by variables unavailable to us, such as perceptions of guilt of the party in contact with the police. For example, youth engaging in criminal activities may perceive police action in ways that are less impactful on legal cynicism. Similarly, in terms of vicarious experiences, youth who witness a police contact in which an individual appears deserving of a legal consequence may hold lower perceptions of legal cynicism.
6.3 | Demographic, individual, and neighborhood characteristics
Consistent with our second hypothesis and previous literature, youth who are racial minorities had higher legal cynicism than White youth (Kirk & Papachristos, 2011; Rosenbaum et al., 2005). In addition, youth who were male, from lower‐income families, and had primary caregivers with lower levels of education had more cynical beliefs. The demographic differences in legal cynicism are congruent with work by Sampson and Bartusch (1998), which has found that neighborhoods characterized by high concentrations of disadvantage have, on average, higher levels of legal cynicism. Given structural factors that push racial minorities into more disadvantaged neighborhoods characterized by both higher rates of crime and aggressive policing strategies that disproportionally impact minority youth (e.g., stop and frisk), it is unsurprising that youth who are racial minorities and youth who live in lower socioeconomic status households have more cynical attitudes toward the law (Rosenbaum et al., 2005). Consistent with extant literature and offering additional support for the second study hypothesis, youth who reported higher levels of delinquent behaviors had higher levels of legal cynicism (Nivette et al., 2015; Trinkner & Cohn, 2014). Due to the cross‐sectional nature of the present study, it is impossible to infer causality in either direction between delinquency and legal cynicism. For example, failing to internalize law‐related norms may reduce the threshold for behaviors one considers to be inappropriate, thus leading to an increased likelihood of engaging in delinquent behaviors. Alternatively, youth who engage in more delinquent behaviors are also likely to hold more antisocial attitudes than youth who do not HOFER ET AL. | 15 engage in delinquent behaviors (Hoge, Andrews, & Leschied, 1994) and therefore may view the law as an “out‐group” oppositional to their goals and attitudes, reinforcing more cynical attitudes towardpolice(Brewer,1979).Todate,research on associations between adolescent delinquency and attitudes toward the law has been predominantly cross‐sectional in nature (Levy, 2001; Nivette et al., 2015; Trinkner & Cohn, 2014), limiting researchers’ ability to understand the temporal relationship between developing attitudes toward the law and delinquent behavior. As delinquency was the strongest predictor of legal cynicism in the present study, a result congruent with previous research (Trinkner & Cohn, 2014), an important avenue for future research is to examine associations between legal cynicism and delinquency using longitudinal data to determine temporal relationships between delinquent behaviors and attitudes toward the law. The third study hypothesis, that neighborhood characteristics would influence legal cynicism was not supported. Contrary to previous research (Cao et al., 1996), primary caregiver reports of neighborhood violence and collective efficacy were not associated with youth reports of legal cynicism. However, this finding may pertain to limitations of the FFCWS data. Neighborhood‐level variables were measured through primary caregiver report. It is possible that youth perceive neighborhood violence and their embeddedness in the neighborhood quite differently than their parents do, which could have implications for the detection of contextual influences on legal cynicism. Measuring neighborhood violence and neighborhood collective efficacy using youth reports may provide a more accurate representation of the youth’s perceptions of their neighborhood and, therefore, the associations between neighborhood factors and legal cynicism. Yet, it is also worth noting that neighborhood factors were added to the model in addition to demographic factors, specifically target youth race and sex. When examining the impact of neighborhood characteristics on legal cynicism without accounting for target youth race and sex, higher neighborhood violence is significantly associated with higher legal cynicism and higher collective efficacy is significantly associated with lower legal cynicism (results not presented but available upon request). Thus, legal cynicism may be more closely tied to individual characteristics (e.g., race and sex) as opposed to the broader neighborhood context. This patterning of results is consistent with previous research that has found male youth of color to experience more aggressive policing strategies regardless of neighborhood context (Goel, Rao, & Shroff, 2016; Rios, 2007).
7 | LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE DIRECTION
Despite addressing a number of substantial gaps in the literature on the relationship between police–youth contact and legal cynicism, findings of the present study should be considered in light of several limitations. First, we rely on cross‐sectional data, making it impossible to untangle the complex interplay between police actions, youth behaviors, and youth attitudes toward the law. For example, it is possible that more delinquent youth hold more cynical attitudes toward the law and perceive officers as acting more unjustly. Alternatively, it is possible that officers who employ procedurally just policing strategies, such as explaining the reason for a stop and interacting with community members in a respectful matter, reduce legal cynicism in adolescents. It is also plausible that some third variable, such as frequency of police contact among more delinquent adolescents impacts both perceptions of legal cynicism and procedural justice. In addition, contact items in cross‐sectional research may also absorb the variance in global attitudes that is attributable to precontact attitudes (Slocum & Wiley, 2018). This is a common limitation of studies on procedural justice, preempting a clearer understanding of the temporal ordering of experiences and attitudes. Longitudinal examinations would allow researchers to account for prior legal attitudes youth may hold toward police and the broader justice system as well as examine changes in youth attitudes over time. Notably, recent longitudinal research by Fine and Cauffman (2015) found that racial differences in legal attitudes became more pronounced over time. Longitudinal data would not only allow researchers to test causality between police contact and legal cynicism, it would also be better able to account for the potential compounding effect of disproportionate police contact experienced by youth of different socioeconomic, racial, and ethnic backgrounds. 16 | HOFER ET AL.
Second, the nature of our data also does not allow ustoconsidermorenuancedfeaturesofpolice–youth contact. For example, we are unable to distinguish between police contact in terms of who initiated the contact and for what reason. Not all police‐initiated contact is for a stop or arrest—it may, for example, be part of community policing initiatives aimed at improving relationships with community members (Skogan,2008).Suchcontactsareexperienced in very different ways compared to police‐initiated encounters that result from a suspicionofcriminalinvolvement(Goodrich,Anderson,& LaMotte, 2014). A second limitation of our police–contact data pertains to the fact that we are unable to account for the cumulative effect of recurring police contacts or the potential interaction effects between direct and vicarious police encounters. In the most disadvantaged neighborhoods, youth are not only more likely to have direct experience with police, they may also be exposed to higher levels of vicarious police contacts. Similarly, youth moving in social contexts that put them at risk for police contact, for example due to affiliation with delinquent peers, are similarly exposed to more vicarious police contacts. Finally, our police–youth contact data are limited by the lack of indicators assessing youth behavior that may precipitate or influence police interactions. Future research in the area of police–youth contact should aim to understand the relationship between police contact and youths’ global assessments of the justice system, including legal cynicism. Moreover, future studies should consider a more nuanced understanding of the situational features of youth’s interactions with police by considering how an interaction was initiated, for what reason, and in what ways youth behaviors may impact these interactions. It is also critical to gain a deeper understanding of the effect of recurring police encounters as well as potential interaction effects between direct and vicarious contacts.
8 | IMPLICATIONS
Results from the present study highlight the associations between situational features of direct and vicarious police contact, youth behaviors, and youth attitudes toward the law.Oftheindependentvariablesassessedinthepresentstudy, youth‐reported delinquency and youth perceptions of procedural justice were most strongly associated with their reports of legal cynicism. In terms of implications for police practice, one takeaway from the present study is that police departments may wish to consider providing officer trainingonprocedurallyjustpolicingtechniquesasoneavenueto influence youth perceptions of the law.Beyondrespondingtocallsforservicethatputofficersincontactwithyouth, police officers have substantial discretion in deciding to initiate an interaction with youth (Mastrofski, 2004; Potter & Kakar, 2002; Wolf, 2014). Officers make decisions about when to initiate contact with youth, determine the appropriate level of intrusion of the stop based on judgments regarding public safety and the legal standard of reasonable suspicion, and decide on the appropriate course of action that an encounter requires (Brown, 2005). Officers also choose the language with which they address youth. Police departments around the country will likely be well‐served by emphasizing the importance of procedurally just strategies, no matter whether the officer’scounterpartinvolvesanadultorteenager. Police and local government administrators may also consider allocating resources toward the implementation of programming that allow youth and police to come in contact in positive ways, for example via community policing efforts or targeted programming. The interactive relationship between community policing and procedural justice has been shown in a number of recent studies. For example, the effectiveness of community policing has been related to procedural justice because community‐oriented policing strategies positively affect community member satisfaction, perceptions of disorder, and police legitimacy (Gill, Weisburd, Telep, Vitter, & Bennett, 2014). In the other direction, it has been shown that procedural justice can effectively enhance community policing strategies and raise the perceived legitimacy of the police (Hamilton‐Smith, Mackenzie, Henry, & Davidones, 2014; Mazerolle, Bennett, Davis, Sargeant, & Manning, 2013). Improving perceptions of procedural justice through community policing initiatives, or enhancing existing community policing initiatives with an emphasis on procedurally just strategies may be one promising route for improving perceptions of the justice system. Additionally, there is some evidence that targeted programming increasing the level of positive contact between youth and police through fun activities and community service projects in a nonenforcement setting can also aid in providing a forum for HOFER ET AL. | 17 consistent, positive contacts that improve youth’s attitudes towards the police and feelings of connection to their community, at least in the short‐term (Goodrich et al., 2014). Researchers and practitioners aiming to understand how to prevent the negative impact of routine police interactions on legal cynicism among youth, may wish to consider how youth services can incorporate strategies that increase positive contacts between youth and police.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Research reported in this publication was supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) of the National Institutes ofHealthunderawardnumbersR01HD36916,R01HD39135, and R01HD40421, as well as a consortium of private foundations. The content issolelytheresponsibilityoftheauthors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
REFERENCES
Alpert, G. P., Macdonald, J. M., & Dunham, R. G. (2005). Police suspicion and discretionary decision making during citizen stops. Criminology, 43(2), 407–434. Ayers, I., & Borowsky, J. (2008). Study of Racially Disparate Outcomes in the Los Angeles Police Department. Retrieved from https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=261537 Azur, M. J., Stuart, E. A., Frangakis, C., & Leaf, P. J. (2011). Multiple imputation by chained equations: what is it and how does it work?: Multiple imputation by chained equations. International Journal of Methods in Psychiatric Research, 20(1), 40–49. https://doi.org/10.1002/mpr.329 Blendheim‐Thoman Center for Research on Child Wellbeing (2018). User’s guide for the Fragile Families and Child Wellbeing Study Public Data, Year 15. Princeton, NJ. Brewer, M. B. (1979). In‐group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive‐motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86 (2), 307–324. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033‐2909.86.2.307 Brick, B. T., Taylor, T. J., & Esbensen, F. A. (2009). Juvenile attitudes towards the police: The importance of subcultural involvement and community ties. Journal of Criminal Justice, 37(5), 488–495. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2009.07.009 Briggs, S. R., & Cheek, J. M. (1986). The role of factor analysis in the development and evaluatbn of personality scales. Journal of Personality, 54(1), 106–148. Brown, R. A. (2005). Black, White, and unequal: Examining situational determinants of arrest decisions from police–suspect encounters. Criminal Justice Studies, 18(1), 51–68. https://doi.org/10.1080/14786010500071121 Brunson, R. K., & Miller, J. (2006). Gender, race, and urban policing: The experience of African American youths. Gender & Society, 20(4), 531–552. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243206287727 Brunson, R. K., & Weitzer, R. (2009). Police relations with Black and White youths in different urban neighborhoods. Urban Affairs Review, 44(6), 858–885. https://doi.org/10.1177/1078087408326973 Brunson, R. K., & Weitzer, R. (2011). Negotiating unwelcome police encounters: The intergenerational transmission of conduct norms. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 40(4), 425–456. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891241611409038 Burdette, H. L., Wadden, T. A., & Whitaker, R. C. (2006). Neighborhood safety, collective efficacy, and obesity in women with young children. Obesity, 14(3), 518–525. https://doi.org/10.1038/oby.2006.67 Buuren, S. van, & Groothuis‐Oudshoorn, K. (2010). MICE: Multivariate imputation by chained equations in R. Journal of Statistical Software, 45(3), 1–67. Cao, L., Frank, J., & Cullen, F. T. (1996). Race, community context and confidence in the police. American Journal of Police, 15(1), 3–22. https://doi.org/10.1108/07358549610116536 Carr, P. J., Napolitano, L., & Keating, J. (2007). We never call the cops and here is why: A qualitative examination of legal cynicism in three Philadelphia neighborhoods. Criminology, 45(2), 445–480. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745‐9125.2007.00084.x Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd Edition.). New York: Academic Press. Crutchfield, R. D., Skinner, M. L., Haggerty, K. P., McGlynn, A., & Catalano, R. F. (2012). Racial disparity in police contacts. Race and Justice, 2(3), 179–202. https://doi.org/10.1177/2153368712448063 Davis, E., Whyde, A., & Langton, L. (2018). Contacts between police and the public, 2015 (No. NCJ 251145). Retrieved from Bureau of Justice Statistics (BJS) website: http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=pbdetail&iid=6406 Delgado, R. (2008). Law enforcement in subordinated communities: Innovation and response. Michigan Law Review, 106 , 1193–1212. 18 | HOFER ET AL.
Engel, R. S. (2005). Citizens’ perceptions of distributive and procedural injustice during traffic stops with police. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42(4), 445–481. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427804272725 Fagan, J. (2010). Report to the Court in David Floyd et al. v. The City of New York, October 15, 2010. U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, Civ 08‐1034 (2008). Fagan, J., Davies, G., & Carlis, A. (2012). Race and selective enforcement in public housing: Race and selective enforcement in public housing. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 9(4), 697–728. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740‐1461.2012.01272.x Fagan, J., Geller, A., Davies, G., & West, V. (2010). Street stops and broken windows revisited. In S. K. Rice, & M. D. White (Eds.), Race, Ethnicity, and Policing: New and Essential Readings (pp. 309–348). New York: New York University Press. Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social Justice Research, 18(3), 217–241. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211‐005‐6823‐3 Federal Bureau of Investigation. (2017). Crime in the United States, 2017. Retrieved from https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime‐in‐the‐ u.s/2017/crime‐in‐the‐u.s.‐2017 Fine, A., & Cauffman, E. (2015). Race and justice system attitude formation during the transition to adulthood. Journal of Developmental and Life‐Course Criminology, 1(4), 325–349. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40865‐015‐0021‐2 Fine, A., Cavanagh, C., Donley, S., Steinberg, L., Frick, P. J., & Cauffman, E. (2016). The role of peer arrests on the development of youths’ attitudes towards the justice system. Law and Human Behavior, 40(2), 211–218. https://doi.org/ 10.1037/lhb0000167 Gau, J. M., & Brunson, R. K. (2010). Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: A study of inner‐city young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy. Justice Quarterly, 27(2), 255–279. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820902763889 Gill, C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C. W., Vitter, Z., & Bennett, T. (2014). Community‐oriented policing to reduce crime, disorder and fear and increase satisfaction and legitimacy among citizens: A systematic review. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 10(4), 399–428. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292‐014‐9210‐y Goel, S., Rao, J. M., & Shroff, R. (2016). Precinct or prejudice? Understanding racial disparities in New York City’s stop‐and‐ frisk policy. The Annals of Applied Statistics, 10(1), 365–394. https://doi.org/10.1214/15‐AOAS897 Goodrich, S. A., Anderson, S. A., & LaMotte, V. (2014). Evaluation of a program designed to promote positive police and youth interactions. Journal of Juvenile Justice, 3(2), 55–71. 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. https://doi.org/10.1080/01924036. 1982.9688748 Hagan, J., Shedd, C., & Payne, M. R. (2005). Race, ethnicity, and youth perceptions of criminal injustice. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 381–407. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240507000302 Hamilton‐Smith, N., Mackenzie, S., Henry, A., & Davidones, C. (2014). Community policing and reassurance: Three studies, one narrative. Criminology & Criminal Justice, 14(2), 160–178. https://doi.org/10.1177/1748895813483762 Harris, K. M., Halpern, C. T., Whitsel, E., Hussey, J., Tabor, J., Entzel, P., & Udry, J. R. (2009). The National Longitudinal Study of Adolescent to Adult Health: Research Design. Retrieved from http://www.cpc.unc.edu/projects/addhealth/design Hinds, L. (2007). Building police youth relationships: The importance of procedural justice. Youth Justice, 7(3), 195–209. https://doi.org/10.1177/1473225407082510 Hinds, Lyn (2009). Youth, police legitimacy and informal contact. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 24(1), 10–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896‐008‐9031‐x Hoge, R. D., Andrews, D. A., & Leschied, A. W. (1994). Tests of three hypotheses regarding the predictors of delinquency. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 22(5), 547–559. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02168937 Howell, K. B. (2009). Broken lives from broken windows: The hidden costs of aggressive order‐maintenance policing. New York University Review of Law & Social Change, 33(3), 271–330. Hox, J. J., Moerbeek, M., & Schoot, R. van de (2017). Multilevel Analysis: Techniques and Applications (3rd). Routledge. https:// doi.org/10.4324/9781315650982 Hurst, Y. G., & Frank, J. (2000). How kids view cops: The nature of juvenile attitudes toward the police. Journal of criminal justice, 28(3), 189–202. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0047‐2352(00)00035‐0 Hurst, Y. G., Frank, J., & Browning, S. L. (2000). The attitudes of juveniles toward the Police—A comparison of Black and White youth. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 23(1), 37–53. Jesilow, P., Meyer, J., & Nazi, Namazzi (1995). Public attitudes toward the police. American Journal of Police, 14(2), 67–88. Kirk, D. S., & Papachristos, A. V. (2011). Cultural mechanisms and the persistence of neighborhood violence. American Journal of Sociology, 116 (4), 1190–1233. https://doi.org/10.1086/655754 Langton, L., & Durose, M. (2011). Police Behavior during Traffic and Street Stops, 201 (No. NCJ 242937). Washington, DC: Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Justice. Lee, J. M., Steinberg, L., & Piquero, A. R. (2010). Ethnic identity and attitudes toward the police among African American juvenile offenders. Journal of Criminal Justice, 38(4), 781–789. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2010.05.005 HOFER ET AL. | 19
Leiber, M. J., Nalla, M. K., & Farnworth, M. (1998). Explaining juveniles’ attitudes toward the police. Justice Quarterly, 15(1), 151–174. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829800093671 Levy, K. S. C. (2001). The relationship between adolescent attitudes towards authority, self‐concept, and delinquency. Adolescence, 36 (142), 333–346. Ma, J., & Grogan‐Kaylor, A. (2017). Longitudinal associations of neighborhood collective efficacy and maternal corporal punishment with behavior problems in early childhood. Developmental Psychology, 53(6), 1027–1041. https://doi.org/10. 1037/dev0000308 Mastrofski, S. D. (2004). Controlling street‐level police discretion. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593(1), 100–118. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002716203262584 Mazerolle, L., Bennett, S., Davis, J., Sargeant, E., & Manning, M. (2013). Procedural justice and police legitimacy: A systematic review of the research evidence. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 9(3), 245–274. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s11292‐013‐9175‐2 Nivette, A. E., Eisner, M., Malti, T., & Ribeaud, D. (2015). The social and developmental antecedents of legal cynicism. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 52(2), 270–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427814557038 Nordberg, A., Twis, M. K., Stevens, M. A., & Hatcher, S. S. (2018). Precarity and structural racism in Black youth encounters with police. Child and Adolescent Social Work Journal, 35(5), 511–518. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10560‐018‐0540‐x Peck, J. H. (2015). Minority perceptions of the police: A state‐of‐the‐art review. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 38(1), 173–203. https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM‐01‐2015‐0001 Piquero, A. R., Fagan, J., Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., & Odgers, C. (2005). Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offenders. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96 (1), 267–298. Potter, R. H., & Kakar, S. (2002). The diversion decision‐making process from the juvenile court practitioners’ perspective: Results of a survey. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 18(1), 20–36. https://doi.org/10.1177/1043986202018001003 R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Retrieved from http://www.R‐project.org/ Reichman, N. E., Teitler, J. O., Garfinkel, I., & McLanahan, S. S. (2001). Fragile Families: Sample and design. Children and Youth Services Review, 23(4–5), 303–326. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0190‐7409(01)00141‐4 Reisig, M. D., & Parks, R. B. (2000). Experience, quality of life, and neighborhood context: A hierarchical analysis of satisfaction with police. Justice Quarterly, 17(3), 607–630. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000094681 Reisig, M. D., Wolfe, S. E., & Holtfreter, K. (2011). Legal cynicism, legitimacy, and criminal offending: The nonconfounding effect of low self‐control. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 38(12), 1265–1279. https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854811424707 Rios, V. M. (2007). The Hypercriminalization of Black and Latino Male Youth in the Era of Mass Incarceration. In M. Marable, I. Steinberg, & K. Middlemass (Eds.), Racializing Justice, Disenfranchising Lives: The Racism, Criminal Justice, and Law Reader (pp. 17–33). https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230607347_2 Rosenbaum, D. P., Schuck, A. M., Costello, S. K., Hawkins, D. F., & Ring, M. K. (2005). Attitudes toward the police: The effects of direct and vicarious experience. Police Quarterly, 8(3), 343–365. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611104271085 Rusinko, W. T., Johnson, K. W., & Hornung, C. A. (1978). The importance of police contact in the formulation of youths’ attitudes toward the police. Journal of Criminal Justice, 6 , 53–67. Sampson, R. J., & Bartusch, D. J. (1998). Legal cynicism and (subcultural?) tolerance of deviance: The neighborhood context of racial differences. Law & Society Review, 32(4), 777. https://doi.org/10.2307/827739 Sampson, R. J., Raudenbush, S. W., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods and violent vrime: A multilevel study of collective efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.277.5328.918 Schafer, J. A., Huebner, B. M., & Bynum, T. S. (2003). Citizen perceptions of police services: Race, neighborhood context, and community policing. Police Quarterly, 6 (4), 440–468. https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611102250459 Schulhofer, S. J., Tyler, T. R., & Huq, A. Z. (2011). American policing at a crossroads: Unsustainable policies and the procedural justice alternative criminal law. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 101, 335–374. Sindall, K., McCarthy, D. J., & Brunton‐Smith, I. (2017). Young people and the formation of attitudes towards the police. European Journal of Criminology, 14(3), 344–364. https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816661739 Skogan, W. G. (2008). An overview of community policing: origins, concepts and implementation. In The Handbook of Knowledge‐ Based Policing: Current Conceptions and Future Directions. John Wiley & Sons. Slocum, L. A., Ann Wiley, S., & Esbensen, F. A. (2016). The importance of being satisfied: A longitudinal exploration of police contact, procedural injustice, and subsequent delinquency. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 43(1), 7–26. https://doi.org/10. 1177/0093854815609069 Slocum, L. A., & Wiley, S. A. (2018). “Experience of the Expected?" Race and ethnicity differences in the effects of police contact on youth: Variability in the consequences of police contact. Criminology, 56 (2), 402–432. https://doi.org/10. 1111/1745‐9125.12174 Smith, D. A. (1986). The neighborhood context of police behavior. Crime and Justice, 8,313–341. https://doi.org/10.1086/449126 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. 20 | HOFER ET AL.
Taylor, T. J., Turner, K. B., Esbensen, F. A., & Winfree, L. T. (2001). Coppin’ an attitude: Attitudinal differences among juveniles toward police. Journal of criminal justice, 11. Terrill, W., & Reisig, M. D. (2003). Neighborhood context and police use of force. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 40(3), 291–321. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427803253800 Trinkner, R., & Cohn, E. S. (2014). Putting the “social” back in legal socialization: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and cynicism in legal and nonlegal authorities. Law and Human Behavior, 38(6), 602–617. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000107 Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven, CT, US: Yale University Press. Tyler, T. R. (2000). Social justice: Outcome and procedure. International Journal of Psychology, 35(2), 117–125. https://doi. org/10.1080/002075900399411 Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. Crime and Justice, 30, 283–357. https:// doi.org/10.1086/652233. Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why People Obey the Law. Retrieved from https://press.princeton.edu/titles/8230.html Tyler, T. R., & Blader, S. L. (2003). The group engagement model: Procedural justice, social identity, and cooperative behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 7(4), 349–361. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327957PSPR0704_07 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 (1), 231–276. Tyler, T. R., Fagan, J., & Geller, A. (2014). Street stops and police legitimacy: Teachable moments in young urban men’s legal socialization: Street stops and police legitimacy. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 11(4), 751–785. https://doi.org/10. 1111/jels.12055 Tyler, T. R., & Folger, R. (1980). Distributional and procedural aspects of satisfaction with citizen‐police encounters. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1(4), 281–292. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp0104_1 Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. (2002). Trust in the Law: Encouraging Public Cooperation with the Police and Courts. Russell Sage Foundation. Tyler, T. R., & Trinker, R. (2017). Why Children Follow Rules: Legal Socialization and the Development of Legitimacy. Oxford University Press. Weitzer, R. (1999). Citizens’ perceptions of police misconduct: Race and neighborhood context. Justice Quarterly, 16 (4), 819–846. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418829900094381 Wolf, K. C. (2014). Arrest decision making by school resource officers. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 12(2), 137–151. https://doi.org/10.1177/1541204013491294 Zimring, F. E. (2011). The City That Became Safe: New York’s Lessons for Urban Crime and Its Control. Oxford University Press.
How to cite this article: Hofer MS, Womack SR, Wilson MN. An examination of the influence of procedurally just strategies on legal cynicism among urban youth experiencing police contact. Journal of Community Psychology. 2019;1–20. https://doi.org/10.1002/jcop.22242