University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Doctoral Dissertations Student Scholarship Spring 2012 Testing the procedural justice model of legal socialization: Expanding beyond the legal world Rick Trinkner University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation Recommended Citation Trinkner, Rick, "Testing the procedural justice model of legal socialization: Expanding beyond the legal world" (2012). Doctoral Dissertations. 666. https://scholars.unh.edu/dissertation/666 This Dissertation is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Doctoral Dissertations by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. TESTING THE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE MODEL OF LEGAL SOCIALIZATION: EXPANDING BEYOND THE LEGAL WORLD BY RICK TRINKNER Dissertation Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Psychology May, 2012 UMI Number: 3525074 All rights reserved INFORMATION TO ALL USERS The quality of this reproduction is dependent upon the quality of the copy submitted. In the unlikely event that the author did not send a complete manuscript and there are missing pages, these will be noted. Also, if material had to be removed, a note will indicate the deletion. UMI 3525074 Published by ProQuest LLC 2012. Copyright in the Dissertation held by the Author. Microform Edition © ProQuest LLC. All rights reserved. This work is protected against unauthorized copying under Title 17, United States Code. ProQuest LLC 789 East Eisenhower Parkway P.O. Box 1346 Ann Arbor, Ml 48106-1346 This dissertation has been examined and approved. o7 Dissertation Director, Ellen S. Cohn, Professor of Psychology foMU/C60oK7l H/W Rebecca M. Warner, Professor of Psychology Carolyn J. (JJ/Ieben, Associate Professor of Psychology Karen T. Van Gund>\JfVssociate Professor of Sociology A Cesar J. Rebellon,/Associate Professor of Sociology 5~// 12 Date This dissertation has been examined and approved. Dissertation Director, Ellen S. Cohn, Professor of Psychology Rebecca M. Warner, Professor of Psychology Carolyn J. Mebert, Associate Professor of Psychology Karen T. Van Gundy, Associate Professor of Sociology Cesar J. RebelIon, Associate Professor of Sociology Date DEDICATION This dissertation is dedicated to my wife, Sarah, who has never questioned my decision to attend graduate school, regardless of where that decision has taken us or the challenges it has presented. The completion of this journey would not have been possible without her unending love, devotion, and support. Sarah, you believed in me always, even when I did not. We made it! iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS First, I would like to acknowledge and thank the National Science Foundation for funding the collection of the data presented and discussed in Study 1 (Grant: SES- 1026803) and Study 3 (Grant: SES-1122888). I would also like to thank Ellen Cohn, Cesar Rebellon, and Karen Van Gundy for allowing me to use data from the New Hampshire Youth Study (NHYS; Study 1) and to gather additional data from the participants involved in the NHYS (Study 3). More importantly, I would like to thank them for being excellent mentors over the last five years. Working with them, 1 have grown so much as both a social scientist and a person. The knowledge I have gained will be invaluable as I move forward into the next stage of my career. I would especially like to thank Ellen, my graduate advisor, for always supporting me. Although graduate school has been the most trying test of my will, skills, and knowledge, it was always made a little easier knowing that she "had my back" in anything I decided to pursue. More than anything else, Ellen has shown me the true power of persistence in everything one does. In many ways, this dissertation is a testament to Ellen's unending determination and persistence. On a more personal note, I would like to thank my family for their unending love and support despite being hundreds of miles away and the wonderful friends I've made here in New Hampshire for giving me much needed distractions when things got too intense. Finally, I would like to thank my fellow cohort members. In so many ways, they are the only ones that can truly understand the trials and tribulations of the last five years. 1 will forever be grateful. What a long strange trip it's been. iv TABLE OF CONTENTS DEDICATION iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS iv LIST OF TABLES viii LIST OF FIGURES xi ABSTRACT xii CHAPTER PAGE INTRODUCTION 1 I. LEGAL SOCIALIZATION 3 Conceptualizing Legal Socialization 3 Traditional Approaches 4 Role of Environment 8 II. THE PROCEDURAL JUSTICE MODEL OF LEGAL SOCIALIZATION 10 Procedural Justice 13 Legitimacy of Authority 19 Legal Cynicism 23 III. GAPS IN PROCEDURAL JUSTICE MODEL OF LEGLA SOCIALIZATION 25 Gap 1: No Validation Outside of the Legal Sphere 25 Gap 2: No Experimental Validation of the Model 27 Gap 3: No Use of Specific Measures 28 Gap 4: Limited Community Samples 29 v Present Dissertation 30 IV. STUDY 1: CORRELATIONAL TEST IN A COMMUNITY SAMPLE 32 Method 33 Results 39 Discussion 60 V. STUDY 2: EXPERIMENTAL TEST IN AN UNDERGRADUATE SAMPLE 65 Method 67 Results 74 Discussion 106 VI. STUDY 3: EXPERIMENTAL TEST IN A COMMUNITY SAMPLE 112 Method 113 Results 119 Discussion 145 VII. GENERAL DISCUSSION 149 Implications 152 Applications 161 Limitations and Future Directions 163 Conclusions 169 LIST OF REFERENCES 171 APPENDIX A: STUDY 1 - MEASURES 184 APPENDIX B: EXPERIMENTAL SCENARIOS 189 APPENDIX C: STUDY 2 - MEASURES 194 APPENDIX D: STUDY 2 - CELL SIZE 198 vi APPENDIX E: STUDY 3 - NEW MEASURES 199 APPENDIX F: STUDY 3 - CELL SIZE 200 APPENDIX H: STUDY 3 - SEM FIT INDICES 201 APPENDIX I: INSTITUTIONAL REVIEW BOARD APPROVAL 205 vii LIST OF TABLES Table 1. Descriptive Statistics for Rule-violating Behaviors, Control Variables, Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Cynicism in Study 1 34 Table 2. Study 1 Mean Differences in Rule-violating Behavior, Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Cynicism as a Function of Cohort 40 Table 3. Study 1 Bivariate Correlations among Control Variables, Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, Cynicism, and Behavior Separated by Cohort 42 Table 4. Comparison of Fit Indices between Two Sets of SEM Models in Study 1 48 Table 5. Comparison of Fit Indices between models as a Function of Cohort in Study 1 49 Table 6. Parameter Estimates, Standard Errors, and Fit Indices for Parent SEM Model in Study 1 51 Table 7. Comparison of Fit Indices for Police SEM Models with and without Negative ATCLS in Study 1 54 Table 8. Parameter Estimates, Standard Errors, and Fit Indices for Police SEM Model in Study 1 55 Table 9. Parameter Estimates, Standard Errors, and Fit Indices for Teacher SEM Model in Study 1 58 Table 10. Study 2 Means and Standard Deviations of Legitimacy, Cynicism, Actor-RVB, and Own-RVB across Scenario Type as a Function of Voice and Impartiality 75 Table 11. Study 2 Means and Standard Deviations for Actor-RVB and Own-RVB within the Police scenario as a Function of Scenario Order 78 Table 12. Bivariate Correlations among Control Variables, Impartiality, Legitimacy, Cynicism, and Behavioral Intention for Parent Scenario in Study 2 80 Table 13. Bivariate Correlations among Control Variables, Impartiality, Legitimacy, Cynicism, and Behavioral Intention for Police Scenario in Study 2 81 Table 14. Bivariate Correlations among Control Variables, Impartiality, Legitimacy, Cynicism, and Behavioral Intention for Teacher Scenario in Study 2 82 viii Table 15. Factor Loadings from Exploratory Factor Analysis of Legitimacy and Cynicism Items for Each Authority Type in Study 2 84 Table 16. Comparison of Fit Indices between Single Construct and Dual Construct Measurement Models in Study 2 87 Table 17. Bivariate Correlations between Short Forms of Legitimacy and Cynicism Measures in Study 2 across Scenario Type 89 Table 18. Parameter Estimates, Standard Errors, and Fit Indices for Parent SEM model in Study 2 93 Table 19. Comparison of Fit Indices for Study 2 Police SEM Models with and without Controlling for Order Effects 97 Table 20. Parameter Estimates, Standard Errors, and Fit Indices for Police SEM model in Study 2 98 Table 21. Parameter Estimates, Standard Errors, and Fit Indices for Teacher SEM model in Study 2 103 Table 22. Description of All Possible Scenario Presentation Orders and the Number of Participants who Received Each Order in Study 3 115 Table 23. Descriptive Statistics for Control Variables, Procedural Justice, Legitimacy, and Behavioral Intention (Actor-RVB and Own-RVB) in Study 3 116 Table 24. Study 3 Means and Standard Deviations of Legitimacy, Cynicism, Actor-RVB, and Own-RVB across Scenario Type as a Function of Voice and Impartiality 120 Table 25. Bivariate Correlations among Control Variables, Impartiality, Legitimacy, Cynicism, and Behavioral Intention for Parent Scenario in Study 3 124 Table 26. Bivariate Correlations among Control Variables, Impartiality, Legitimacy, Cynicism, and Behavioral Intention for Police Scenario in Study 3 125 Table 27. Bivariate Correlations among Control Variables, Impartiality, Legitimacy, Cynicism, and Behavioral Intention for Teacher Scenario in Study 3 126 Table 28. Factor Loadings from Exploratory Factor Analysis of Legitimacy and Cynicism Items for Each Authority Type in Study 3 129 Table 29. Comparison of Fit Indices between Single Construct and Dual Construct Measurement Models in Study 3 131 ix Table 30. Sobel Tests of Indirect Paths across Scenario Type and Outcome in Study 3 134 Table 31. OLS Regressions Testing the Procedural Justice Model of Legal Socialization in the Parent Scenario in Study 3 using the Baron and Kenny (1986) Method 136 Table 32. OLS Regressions Testing the Procedural Justice Model of Legal Socialization in the Police Scenario in Study 3 using the Baron and Kenny (1986) Method 139 Table 33.