Illegitimacy is Dangerous: How Authorities Experience and React to Illegitimacy

Phillip Atiba Goff, Liana Maris Epstein, Avital Mentovich, Kavita S. Reddy

University of California, Los Angeles, USA.

DOI: 10.4236/psych.2013.43A049                

Abstract

Research on legitimacy has focused on subordinate groups to the exclusion of authority figures. The present research explores how authorities experience concerns with their own legitimacy. We do so in the context of law enforcement asked to enact a legitimacy-challenging policy: cross-deputization (requiring police to enforce immigration laws similar to Arizona’s SB1070).We expect that authorities’ perceptions of their own legitimacy rest on two factors: a) their own judgments of policies they enforce; and b) how they imagine subordinates would react to the enforcement of those policies. We examine the role of these factors on officers’ sense of anxiety and physical safety. Results reveal that officers’ feelings of safety are driven both by their own views and, to a greater extent, by how they imagine subordinates would react to the policy. These results demonstrate the importance of police legitimacy to officers’ perceptions of their own safety, a vital factor in maintaining low levels of police/community conflict.

Keywords

Legitimacy; Law Enforcement; Public Policy; Power

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

[1]	Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. G. (1992). Policing urban America. Long Grove, IL: Waveland Press. doi:10.1017/CBO9780511499449
[2]	Alpert, G. P., & Dunham, R. G. (2004). Understanding police use of force: Officers, suspects, and reciprocity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
[3]	Amendola, K. L., Williams, K. N., Hamilton, E. E., & Puryear, V. (2008). Law enforcement executive views: Results from the conference survey. In M. Malina (Ed.), The role of local police: Striking a balance between immigration enforcement and civil liberties. Washington DC: Police Foundation.
[4]	Burbank, C., Goff, P. A., & Keesee, T. L. (2010). Policing immigration: A job we do not want. Huffington Post. URL (last checked 3 May 2011). http://www.huffingtonpost.com/chief-chris-burbank/policing-immigration-a-jo_b_602439.html
[5]	Carver, C. S., & White, T. L. (1994). Behavioral inhibition, behavioral activation, and affective responses to impending reward and punishment: The BIS/BAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 319-333. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.67.2.319
[6]	Epstein, L. M., & Goff, P. A. (2011). Safety of liberty? The bogus tradeoff of cross-deputization policy. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 10, 1-11.
[7]	French Jr., J. R. P., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150-167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
[8]	Goff, P. A., & Epstein, L. M. (2011). The faces are different, but the story is (mostly) the same: Expanding Symbolic Racism Theory to immigration policy and anti-Latino bias. In press.
[9]	Goff, P. A., Epstein, L. M., & Reddy, K. S. (2012). Crossing the line of legitimacy: The effect of cross-deputization policy on crime-reporting. In press.
[10]	Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Stanko, E. A., & Hohl, K. (2012a). Just authority? Trust in the police in England and Wales. Oxon: Routledge.
[11]	Jackson, J., Bradford, B., Hough, M., Myhill, A., Quinton, P., & Tyler, T. R. (2012b). Why do people comply with the law? Legitimacy and the influence of legal institutions. British Journal of Criminology, 52, 1051-1071. doi:10.1093/bjc/azs032
[12]	Jost, J. T., & Major, B. (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. New York: Cambridge University Press.
[13]	Kelman, H. C., & Hamilton, V. L. (1989).Crimes of obedience: Toward a social psychology of authority and responsibility. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
[14]	Lammers, J., Galinsky, A. D, Gordijn, E. H, & Otten, S. (2008). Illegitimacy moderates the effects of power on approach. Psychological Science, 19, 558-564. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02123.x
[15]	Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
[16]	Major Cities Chiefs Immigration Committee (2006). M.C.C. Immigration Committee recommendations for enforcement of immigration laws by local police agencies. URL (last checked 10 May 2011). http://www.majorcitieschiefs.org/pdf/position_statement_revised.pdf
[17]	Molina, L., & Huo, Y. (2006). Is pluralism a viable model of diversity? The benefits and limits of subgroup respect. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 9, 359-376. doi:10.1177/1368430206064639
[18]	Tyler, T. R. (2003). Procedural justice, legitimacy, and the effective rule of law. In M. Tonry (Ed.), Crime and justice, 30, 431-505.
[19]	Tyler, T. R. (2006a). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual Review of Psychology, 57, 375-400. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
[20]	Tyler, T. R. (2006b). Why people obey the law: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and Compliance (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
[21]	Tyler, T. R. (2008). Procedural justice and the courts. Court Review, 44, 26-31.
[22]	Tyler, T. R., Callahan, P., & Frost, J. (2007). Armed, and dangerous(?): Can self-regulatory approaches shape rule adherence among agents of social control. Law and Society Review, 41, 457-492. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5893.2007.00304.x
[23]	Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
[24]	Tyler, T. R., & Wakslak, C. J. (2004). Profiling and police legitimacy: Procedural justice, attributions of motive, and acceptance of police authority. Criminology, 42, 253-281. doi:10.1111/j.1745-9125.2004.tb00520.x
[25]	Van Zomeren, M., Fischer, A., & Spears, R. (2007). Testing the limits of tolerance: How intergroup anxiety amplifies negative and offensive responses to out-group-initiated contact. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1686-1699. doi:10.1177/0146167207307485