See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/249291950

Great Expectations: Relations of Trust and Confidence in Police Interviews

with Witnesses of Crime

Article  in  Policing · August 2010

DOI: 10.1093/police/paq022

CITATIONS READS

9 343

1 author:

Karl Roberts
Western Sydney University and World Health Organization WHO
68 PUBLICATIONS   671 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Stalking research View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Karl Roberts on 12 April 2016.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 265

Article

Great Expectations: Relations of Trust and

Confidence in Police Interviews with
Witnesses of Crime

Downloaded from http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/ at Macquarie University on July 25, 2013

Karl Roberts*

Abstract In investigating crime, police rely upon information obtained from witness interviews. Witnesses and
police frequently come to an interview with different expectations based upon their respective, sometimes
competing, needs. Witnesses are often focused upon procedural justice considerations with some uncertainty about
the interview process. Police are often operationally focused on the evidence they require and may need information
quickly to apprehend an offender. The manner in which witness interviews are conducted can have a significant
bearing upon the quality and quantity of information obtained and its usefulness to the criminal justice system. In
addition, should the procedural justice expectations of a witness go unmet, this can have significant implications upon
perceptions of police legitimacy and ultimately cooperation with the police. This paper discusses witness interviews
from the perspective of the protagonists’ expectations and explores how police interview behaviour might impact
upon public perceptions of and cooperation with police.

Introduction interaction with members of the public and where

expectations of both police and public are likely to
The views held about the police by members of the
be influential and where relations of trust and con-
public are of increasing importance as internation-
fidence are vital is when police officers interview
ally governments begin to assess police performance
witnesses of crime. This was recognized in the UK
using measures of public confidence and trust
government’s ‘No Witness, No Justice’ initiative.
(Home Office, 2009). Important determinants of
confidence judgments are public expectations of Many victims and witnesses do not
the police, which may be confirmed or challenged receive the level of information and
when members of the public interact with police of- support they need when participating
ficers (e.g. Tyler, 1989; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003; in the criminal justice process. This
Skogan, 2006). Much recent work has demonstrat- neglect can often lead to a withdrawal
ed that public expectations may be conceptualized of support for the prosecution, non-
as a desire to be treated with respect, courtesy, and attendance at court and dissatisfaction
in a fair manner, so-called procedural justice (Tyler, with the process, which can result in
1989; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003). One area of failed cases and a reluctance by wit-
policing that involves considerable face-to-face nesses to re-engage in the criminal

* Australian Graduate School of Policing, Charles Stuart University, PO Box 168, Manly, NSW, 1655, Australia. E-mail:
karoberts@csu.edu.au
Advance Access publication: 30 June 2010
Policing, Volume 4, Number 3, pp. 265–272
doi: 10.1093/police/paq022
© The Authors 2010. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of CSF Associates: Publius, Inc. All rights reserved.
For permissions please e-mail: journals.permissions@oxfordjournals.org
266 Policing Article
justice process on future occasions
(Cabinet Office, 2003)
Discussions of police–witness interviews are im-
portant when considering public views of police
because the expectations of the protagonists can
powerfully influence their respective behaviour
during the interview (Milne and Bull, 1999). The
manner in which police officers conduct witness
interviews may have a significant bearing upon
the information obtained from the witness, its qual-
ity, reliability, relevance, and usefulness to the
criminal justice system (e.g. Gudjonsson, 2003),
as well as influencing the witness’s perceptions of
police legitimacy and confidence in and willingness
to co-operate with the police (Sunshine and Tyler,
2003; Tyler and Blader, 2003). Taking police–
witness interviews in the UK as its context, this
paper will explore the relative expectations of
the protagonists, how expectations may influence
their interactions and ultimately influence public
judgments about the police. The paper will begin
by considering the current status of witness inter-
viewing in the UK.
The PEACE model
Following a series of miscarriages of justice in the
UK where police interviewing methods were se-
verely criticized (Walker and Starmer, 1999;
Savage and Milne, 2007) an ethics-based approach
to interviewing was devised that aimed to minimize
the risks of unreliable evidence and negative reac-
tions from witnesses (Shepherd, 1991). The
approach is known by the acronym PEACE to
highlight five distinct stages in the interview pro-
cess. PEACE stands for, (P)Planning—stressing
the importance of planning an interview prior to
its commencement so that clear aims and objec-
tives of the interview are established; (E)Engage
and explain—involves explaining to the witness
what the purpose of the interview is, what they
should expect, and how the interview will proceed;
(A)Account—refers to the manner in which an ac-
count or version of events is elicited from the
K. Roberts
witness; (C)Closure—stresses the importance of
bringing the interview to a comfortable conclusion
whilst maintaining rapport with a witness and
avoiding negative emotional reactions such as anger
or anxiety; (E)Evaluate —reminds the interviewer
to evaluate the product of their interview and their
performance to identify other informational needs
(Milne and Bull, 2003). Central to the PEACE model
is development of rapport with a witness prior to and
Downloaded from http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/ at Macquarie University on July 25, 2013
during the interview as rapport engenders trust be-
tween the witness and interviewer, minimizes witness
anxiety and distress, and maximizes the disclosure of
useful information (e.g. Gudjonsson, 2003; Milne
and Bull, 2003; Ord et al., 2008).
The PEACE model of investigative interviewing
is the interview structure mandated, trained, and
used by the police throughout the UK (ACPO,
2009). Evaluation of the use of the PEACE model
has illustrated improvement in the reliability of
witness accounts and a reduction in miscarriages
of justice where interviewing practices were cited
by the appellant (Shepherd and Milne, 2006).
However, PEACE is merely a structure for investi-
gative interviewing, reminding practitioners of
important stages that they should go through dur-
ing an interview. PEACE does not in and of itself
suggest what an interviewer should do within any
particular stage. For example, PEACE stresses the
importance of rapport with a witness, but how
should this be created and maintained during an
interview? Similarly, PEACE stresses the impor-
tance of obtaining an account from the witness,
but again what methods should be used to do this?
Ultimately, the methods used by a police officer
utilizing the PEACE model to interview a witness
will be determined in large part by their own train-
ing, skills, experience, and expectations and it is
here that variation may exist in police officer inter-
viewing practices (Gudjonsson, 2003; Powell et al.,
2009).
When an interview is carried out using the PEACE
model, witnesses and police officers may engage in
the interview with different expectations based upon
the respective, often competing, needs of each pro-
Trust and Confidence in Police Interviews
tagonist (Ord et al., 2008). These expectations influ-
ence behaviour during an interview and this may
lead to various outcomes, from witness trust and
cooperation with the police officer through to active
non-compliance with the criminal justice system
such as refusal to give evidence (e.g. Gudjonsson,
2003). But what are the expectations these different
protagonists bring to the interview?
Police officer expectations
In a police inquiry, police officers may be keen to
obtain information as quickly as possible in order
to speedily apprehend an offender. Pressure may
be brought to bear upon all police protagonists
from their superiors, news media, the public, and
politicians (Ord et al., 2008; Stelfox, 2009). In any
police inquiry, police officers may be interested in
only a proportion of the information that a witness
can provide. Some information can be judged irrel-
evant because it is extraneous to the needs of an
inquiry and/or may be unrelated to the legal points
to prove in the inquiry, i.e. information that is re-
quired to demonstrate that an offence has taken
place (Ord et al., 2008). The upshot of this is that
a police interviewer is likely to enter an interview
with their own expectations of a witness, related
to operational demands that can be very different
from those of the witness. But what of the expecta-
tions of witnesses?
Witness expectations
Witnesses present themselves to the police with a
range of different attitudes, beliefs, and expecta-
tions. In the UK, three classes of witness have
been defined, termed ‘compliant’, ‘reluctant’, and
‘hostile’. Compliant witnesses are individuals who
wish to cooperate fully with the police and are keen
to pass information to them. Reluctant witnesses
may not wish to interact with the police and may
not be forthcoming with information. Hostile wit-
nesses are individuals who may be overtly hostile to
the police, may refuse to give information, and may
even attempt to disrupt interviews (Milne et al., 2009;
Ord et al., 2008). The different motivations of wit-
Article Policing 267
nesses impact upon the interaction between the
witness and interviewer and the police interviewer
faces different challenges for each class of witness.
For simplicity, we will explore the interaction be-
tween police officers and compliant witnesses, as it
is this type of witness who is most likely to wish to
engage the police officer during the interview (Ord
et al., 2008). It is however not certain compliant
witnesses will provide all of the information they
Downloaded from http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/ at Macquarie University on July 25, 2013
have or that their cooperation with the police will
continue since the likelihood of this rests largely
upon how the police officer interacts with them
(Ord et al., 2008; Powell et al., 2009; Milne and
Bull, 2003). Compliant witnesses therefore pro-
vide an interesting context in which to explore
the impact of police and witness expectations
and behaviour during interviews.
What expectations do compliant witnesses bring
to an interview? Work within procedural justice is
relevant here. There are four classes of procedural
justice expectations held by individuals concerning
how they expect to be treated by authorities such as
the police. These expectations are: a need to per-
ceive that they have a voice in the interaction;
that they can express a viewpoint and feel their in-
formation is valued; that there is neutrality in the
interaction, an absence of bias in their treatment;
that they experience respectful treatment in the in-
teraction and are treated in a manner that protects
their rights; and that they feel trustworthiness of
the authority, are treated in a sincere way where
there is concern for their needs and their needs are
addressed (Tyler, 1989). The extent to which these
expectations are met in an interaction influences the
perceived legitimacy, trust, and confidence in the
authority and the likelihood that the individual will
cooperate with the requirements of the authority
(e.g. Tyler, 1989; Sunshine and Tyler, 2003; Tyler
and Blader, 2003). In related work, Skogan (2006)
has shown that there is an asymmetry in the impact
of negative police–public encounters such that a
negative encounter has a much greater impact up-
on an individual’s confidence in the police than a
positive encounter. Negative encounters appear to
268 Policing Article
significantly reduce confidence whereas positive
encounters appear to have a more limited impact
upon pre-existing confidence in police. The upshot
of this is that the extent to which the procedural
justice needs of witnesses are met will strongly in-
fluence their views about and cooperation with the
police. What police officers do or do not do during
an interview is therefore a crucial determinant of
witness perception and cooperation.
In addition to their procedural justice-related
expectations, witnesses often enter an interview
unsure what to expect of the interview situation
(Milne and Bull, 2003). Most individuals have little
experience of police interviews and so do not
know what will happen to them and what they
may be required to do and are often unsure about
what information is relevant and what is not. Some
witnesses may also be distressed by what they have
witnessed and/or by being interviewed by the po-
lice (Milne and Bull, 1999). Of relevance also are
the limitations of witness recall. Frequently, wit-
ness accounts of events are limited with witnesses
uncertain what they saw or did not see. As a result,
witness accounts often contain contradictions and
inconsistency (Kebbell and Milne, 1998; Milne and
Bull, 2003; Wilcock et al., 2008).
Police–witness interactions
Having considered the relative expectations of the
witness and interviewer, how might these effect
their interactions and what are the implications
for the interview and public perceptions of policing?
To recap, for a witness, acting in the context of un-
certainty and even anxiety and distress, they may
place considerable responsibility in the hands of
the interviewer to reassure them and to guide them
through the interview process (e.g. Gudjonsson,
2003; Milne et al., 2009; Ord et al., 2008; Shepherd,
1991). In addition, procedural justice expectations
suggest that witnesses are likely to want to be
treated in a respectful manner where all their in-
formation is listened to and is valued by the
interviewer. The limitations of witness memory
K. Roberts
suggest that some witness information may be in-
accurate and/or contradictory. Police interviewers
in contrast may have an operational requirement
for certain information and not all of the infor-
mation that a witness can provide is of value to
the inquiry.
The impact of this on police behaviour may be
that, in the face of a witness’s contrary expectations,
an interviewer may direct the interview into topics
of interest to them and may not dwell upon other
Downloaded from http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/ at Macquarie University on July 25, 2013
topics, some of which may be of significance to the
witness. Interviewers may ignore some of the infor-
mation from the witness; they may interrupt the
witness if the witness is providing seemingly irrele-
vant information; they may challenge the witness’s
account; or even ask the witness to remain silent,
perhaps curtailing the interview. Under time pres-
sure, there may not be the opportunity to provide
reassurance to the witness and to explain the situa-
tion to the witness’s satisfaction or the interviewer
may feel that this is unnecessary (Ord et al., 2008).
In the absence of clear explanations, there is a risk
that the witness proceeds in the interview with no
clear idea of what to do or what is relevant. In fact,
it is known that witnesses who are uncertain of
what to do in the interview will edit their accounts
so that they produce only the information that is
asked for by the interviewer (Milne et al, 2009). Ul-
timately, then, police interview behaviours may
arise that consist solely of the police officer’s agenda
with little interest in the needs of the witness.
‘Question and answer’ approaches have been
observed to be a common witness interview tactic
(especially under time pressure) in which the in-
terviewer asks a series of direct questions around
topics of interest to them (Milne and Bull, 2003;
Roberts and Herrington, 2010). Indeed, such ap-
proaches are often based upon a view that the police
should control any interview explicitly (Roberts
and Herrington, 2010). A considerable limitation
of such approaches is that they fail to appreciate
that the witness may have an agenda of their own,
which may contain useful information above and
beyond the focus of the interviewer (e.g. Shepherd,
Trust and Confidence in Police Interviews
1991). In other words, the approach assumes that
the police know what information is relevant and
important. It does not account for the possibility
that the witness may be in possession of other rele-
vant information.1
In the face of a witness who is failing to provide
the type of information required (perhaps because
of contradictory material, inconsistency of informa-
tion, limited detail, poor recollection of events or
details, irrelevance as perceived by the interviewer),
there is potential for frustration from the interview-
er which may lead to anger, a dismissive attitude
towards the witness, and overt challenges to the ve-
racity of the witness’s information (Gudjonsson,
2003; Milne and Bull, 2003). The behaviour of both
the interviewer and the witness is interdependent
with police behaviour often responding to the per-
ceived usefulness, i.e. how closely it matches the
interviewer’s requirements, of the information the
witness provides (Ord et al., 2008). What then are
the implications of the interviewer’s behaviour? We
will explore this in the next section.
Impact of interviewer behaviour
Described above were interviewer behaviours that
may result from time pressure and a failure of the
witness’s information to match the expectations of
the interviewer. This interviewer behaviour, al-
though by no means inevitable, where it does
occur may result in significant but unintended
consequences.
If we revisit witness expectations for proce-
dural justice, we can see how police behaviour
may damage these expectations. The need for a voice
in an interaction with an authority can be compro-
mised if the police officer does not appear to be
listening to the witness by ignoring, disregarding,
interrupting, or overtly challenging the witness’s in-
formation. This is likely to be compounded if the
witness perceives that important information has
1
Interrogation can be considered an extreme form of question–answer interviewing. An interrogation is characterized as an
asymmetrical ‘conversation’ between an interviewer and interviewee, where the interviewer dominates the encounter.
Interrogations may also include implied or explicit threats and coercion (e.g. Gudjonsson, 2003).
Article Policing 269
been ignored. The need for neutrality can also be
compromised should the witness perceive that the
interviewer is only interested in certain types of in-
formation at the expense of other information the
witness may have. The need for respectful treatment
can be compromised should the interviewer show
anger or frustration, interrupt the witness, or negate
some of their information. Finally, the need for
trustworthiness from the interviewer can be com-
Downloaded from http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/ at Macquarie University on July 25, 2013
promised should the interviewer not adequately
take heed of the legitimate concerns of the witness,
for example by providing no explanations of what to
expect during the interview to allay uncertainty and
fears, failing to attend to the witness’s comfort by
providing breaks even for food and drink, the inter-
viewer expressing anger or adopting a brusque and
even threatening manner.
As detailed earlier, if the requirements for proce-
dural justice are compromised in a police–public
interaction, there is a strong risk of a reduction
in the perceived legitimacy of the police with an
attendant reduction in trust and confidence in
the police and the likelihood of cooperation with
the police (Tyler and Blader, 2003; Skogan,
2006). Lack of cooperation may be seen during an
interview with a witness refusing to be interviewed
further or following the interview with a refusal to
engage with the police as part of the criminal justice
system, perhaps by refusing to give a statement and
to attend court (Milne and Bull, 2003; Tyler and
Blader, 2003). And of course, witnesses also return
to their friends, families, communities, and work-
places and their views can be influential upon
other individual’s perceptions of the police (Tyler
and Blader 2003).
In addition to procedural justice expectations
being thwarted, interview behaviour such as inter-
ruption, threats, ignoring, or otherwise negating
information and excessive challenges during an in-
terview can result in unreliable accounts from
270 Policing Article
witnesses; in such circumstances, the risk of sug-
gestibility (a witness inadvertently incorporating
details from other sources into their account) is in-
creased with potentially negative consequences for
the reliability of information and ultimately for
the criminal justice system (Gudjonsson, 2003).
Interview tactics to reduce problems
We now move on to consider possible ways of lim-
iting some of these unwanted effects. In the next
section, we will consider approaches to obtaining
witness accounts that actively seek to empower
and reassure the witness during the interview.
The PEACE model, in stressing the importance
of rapport building by making attempts to engage
with the witness and to explain the situation, is an
overt attempt to minimize some of the risks to the
interview described above (Shepherd, 1991). Rap-
port is designed to build trust and a significant
element in rapport building is to listen to the con-
cerns and fears of the witness and to attempt to
reassure them by explaining what to expect within
the situation (Milne et al., 2009). In addition, en-
gaging and explaining the situation to the witness
would appear to focus directly onto procedural jus-
tice expectations such that an individual’s concerns
and needs are being listened to and taken account
of. Whilst research has not so far explicitly ex-
plored the impact of PEACE upon witnesses’
perceptions of procedural justice, evaluations of
PEACE interviews with witnesses have illustrated
improvements in the amount of information pro-
vided to the police over methods where no attempt
has been made to engage with the witness (e.g.
Savage and Milne, 2007), indicating that perhaps
witnesses were more cooperative with police offi-
cers as predicted by procedural justice theories.
In obtaining witness accounts of events, in the
UK, two methods of interviewing best practice
have been suggested; these have been termed Free
2
In the case of conversation management, the witness account is sometimes referred to as the witness agenda to distinguish it
from the police agenda that follows the unchallenged witness account and seeks further clarification of the information
provided and asks for other information not explicitly referred to in the witness account that the police need to pursue
their inquires.
K. Roberts
Recall and Conversation Management2 (Milne et al,
2009; Ord et al., 2008). The essential premise of
both approaches is that in addition to rapport
building and providing reassuring explanations to
a witness interviewers should make an opportunity
for the witness to provide an account that is in their
own words and that is (initially) unchallenged and
uninterrupted by the interviewer. Witnesses are
reassured that the interviewer is interested in any
Downloaded from http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/ at Macquarie University on July 25, 2013
and all information that they can provide and that
nothing is irrelevant. The idea here is that the
witness does the work in recall and chooses where
to begin their account, essentially it is the witness’s
agenda not that of the interviewer. Only when the
witness has provided as full an account as they can
do the police evaluate the account and then seek fur-
ther clarification or ask specific questions about
topics and areas of interest to them not otherwise
covered. This has the effect that the witness feels
in control of the encounter and signals that what
they have to say is important (Ord et al., 2008; Milne
et al., 2009; Savage and Milne, 2007). Again, these
approaches have not been subject to evaluation
from a procedural justice perspective; however,
the approaches explicitly give a voice to the witness
and provide a context in which witnesses may feel
that they are empowered and their opinions and
views are being taken seriously. As such, one would
expect them to enhance perceptions of procedural
justice with impact upon perceived legitimacy and
cooperation with the police.
Approaches such as conversation management
and free recall contrast with other approaches more
focussed upon question and answer approaches
where the interviewer determines what is relevant
and dominates the encounter. This may (uninten-
tionally) signal to the witness that some of their
information is unwanted (even if it is of importance
to them) and also that they have limited control
within the interaction. This is likely to challenge
Trust and Confidence in Police Interviews
their procedural justice expectations with all the
problems associated with this.
Conclusion
This paper has explored public–police interactions
from the perspective of police witness interviews.
We have considered the expectations of witnesses
and police regarding interviews and have demon-
strated how these expectations can give rise to
police behaviours that may result in unwanted
consequences for the interview. In particular, we
have seen how certain interviewer behaviours may
produce a reduction in a witness’s perception that
they are being treated with respect, in an unbiased
fashion, and in a caring manner and that they
are being listened to and considered, effectively
compromising a witness’s procedural justice ex-
pectations. This in turn increases the risk of
obtaining unreliable witness information, with
an attendant threat to the integrity of the criminal
justice system. There is also the likelihood of a re-
duction in the perceived legitimacy of the police,
which can result in a reduction in witness coop-
eration with and confidence in the police. The
PEACE interview model was described as a meth-
od for reducing some of these risks and we
considered methods of obtaining witness accounts,
Free Recall and Conversation Management, that
specifically empower the witness giving them con-
trol of the interaction and letting them set the
agenda, methods that ultimately may serve to
enhance procedural justice expectations.
It is important to note that it is not suggested
here that police officers pander to every expecta-
tion and need of a witness to the detriment of
the criminal investigation. Rather the suggestion
is that because witnesses have certain basic needs
and expectations of their interactions with police,
if interviewers are aware of these and tailor their
behaviour accordingly to meet them, they are
likely to increase cooperation and the quality
and quantity of information obtained from inter-
views. Ultimately, interviewers need only take
Article Policing 271
simple basic steps, such as reassuring the witness,
explaining the interview situation, giving greater
control to the witness, and treating the witness with
respect, for these dividends to become apparent.
Where measures of police performance are intrinsi-
cally linked to public confidence, how police
officers behave towards witnesses would seem to
be highly relevant.
Downloaded from http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/ at Macquarie University on July 25, 2013
References
ACPO (2009). “NPIA Briefing Paper.” National Investigative
Strategy. London: HMSO.
Cabinet Office (2003). No Witness, No Justice: National Vic-
tims and Witnesses Care Programme. London: Cabinet
Office.
Gudjonsson, G. H. (2003). The Psychology of Interrogations
and Confessions: A Handbook. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Home Office (2009). The New Performance Landscape for
Crime and Policing. London: HMSO.
Kebbell, M. and Milne, R. (1998). “Police Officers' Percep-
tion of Eyewitness Factors in Forensic Investigations.”
The Journal of Social Psychology. 138: 323–330.
Milne, R. and Bull, R. (1999). Investigative Interviewing:
Pyschology and Practice. West Susses, England: John Wiley.
Milne, R. and Bull, R. (2003). “Interviewing by the Police.”
In Carson D. and Bull R. (eds). Handbook of Psychology in
Legal contexts. Chichester, UK: Wiley.
Milne, R., Shaw, G., and Smith, K. (2009). Achieving Best
Evidence in Criminal Proceedings. Guidance on Interview-
ing Victims and witnesses, and Using Special Measures.
London: Crown Prosecution Service.
Ord, B., Shaw, G., and Green, T. (2008). Investigative Inter-
viewing Explained. 2nd edn. Lexis Nexis.
Powell, M., Wright, R., and Clark, S. (2009). “Improving the
Competency of Police Officers in Conducting Investigative
Interviews with Children.” Police Research and Practice.
1–16.
Roberts, K. A. and Herrington, V. L. (2010). “Police In-
terviews: International Perspectives.” In Kitaeff J. (ed.).
Handbook of Police Psychology. London: Routledge, in
press.
Savage, S. and Milne, R. (2007). “Miscarriages of Justice—
The Role of the Investigative Process.” In Newburn T.,
Williamson T. and Wright A. (eds). Handbook of Crimi-
nal Investigation. Cullompton: Willan.
Shepherd, E. (1991). “Ethical Interviewing.” Policing. 7:
42–60.
Shepherd, E. and Milne, R. (2006). “Have You Told the
Management About This?: Bringing Witness Interview-
ing into the 21st Century.” In Heaton-Armstrong A.,
Shepherd E., Gudjonsson G. and Wolchover D. (eds).
Witness Testimony: Psychological, Investigative, and Evi-
dential Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
 272 Policing Article
Skogan, W. (2006). “Asymmetry in the Impact of Encoun-
ters with Police.” Policing and Society. 16: 99–126.
Stelfox, P. (2009). Criminal Investigation. Cullompton: Willan.
Sunshine, J. and Tyler, T. R. (2003). “The role of Proce-
dural Justice and Legitimacy in Shaping Public Support
for Policing.” Law and Society Review. 37: 513–547.
Tyler, T. R. (1989). “The Psychology of Procedural Justice:
A Test of the Group Value Model.” Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology. 57: 830–838.
View publication stats
K. Roberts
Tyler, T. R. and Blader, S. L. (2003). “The Group Engage-
ment Model: Procedural Justice, Social Identity and
Cooperative Behaviour.” Personality and Social Psychology
Review. 7: 349–361.
Walker, C. and Starmer, K. (eds) (1999). Miscarriages of
Justice. London: Blackstone Press.
Wilcock, R., Bull, R., and Milne, R. (2008). Criminal Iden-
tification by Witnesses: Psychology and Practice. Oxford:
Oxford University Press.
Downloaded from http://policing.oxfordjournals.org/ at Macquarie University on July 25, 2013