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

net/publication/356007765

Antecedents of Trust in the Jamaican Police: Findings from a Cross‑Sectional

Study

Article in International Criminology · December 2021

DOI: 10.1007/s43576-021-00036-9

CITATIONS READS

2 91

2 authors, including:

Daniel K. Pryce
Old Dominion University
29 PUBLICATIONS 302 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

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

Police Crime View project

All content following this page was uploaded by Daniel K. Pryce on 26 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

International Criminology
https://doi.org/10.1007/s43576-021-00036-9

Antecedents of Trust in the Jamaican Police: Findings

from a Cross‑Sectional Study
Daniel K. Pryce1 · Lorna E. Grant2

Received: 11 September 2021 / Accepted: 30 October 2021

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2021

Abstract
This study contributes to the extant literature by being the first to examine the relative impacts of instrumental factors of polic-
ing (police performance, risk of sanctioning, and distributive justice) and experiences with police (personal and vicarious)
on trust in the police in Jamaica. This study’s importance is enhanced by the fact that it was carried out in a region that has
been understudied by policing scholars. Using cross-sectional data from a sample of Jamaicans, homeownership predicted
trust in the police. In addition, distributive justice, effectiveness, and personal experiences, but not risk of sanctioning and
vicarious experiences, predicted Jamaicans’ trust in their country’s police. The implications for policing, policy, and future
research are addressed.

Keywords Distributive justice · Police effectiveness · Experiences with police · Trust in police · Policing in Jamaica ·
Policing in postcolonial societies

Introduction trustworthy (Solomon, 2019) and engendering distributive

In the current study, we examine in the Jamaican population
the relative effects of three instrumental factors of policing
(distributive justice, police performance, and risk of sanc-
tioning) and experiences with police (personal and vicari-
ous) on trust1 in the Jamaican police. Our study makes a
significant contribution to the criminological literature
because we believe it is the first study to examine the rela-
tive effects of the aforementioned variables on trust in the
Jamaican police. Research has pointed to the positive con-
nection between citizens’ perceptions of police and trust in
legal authorities (Pryce & Chenane, 2021; Sargeant et al.,
2014; Van Craen, 2013). Thus, community members are
more likely to view legal authorities (e.g., the police) as
legitimate when the actions of the latter are both seen as
* Daniel K. Pryce
dpryce@odu.edu
Lorna E. Grant
lgrant@nccu.edu
1
Department of Sociology and Criminal Justice, Old
Dominion University, Norfolk, VA 23529, USA
2
Department of Criminal Justice, North Carolina Central
University, Durham, NC 27707, USA
justice (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003).
When broad swaths of citizens repose trust in the vari-
ous arms of government, they are likely to defer to legal
authorities and institutions, and may display higher levels
of confidence in those institutions (Nix et al., 2015; Pryce
& Chenane, 2021). Compared to authoritarian societies,
1
Trust and obligation to obey were combined as a measure of legiti-
macy in many studies (for example, see Sunshine & Tyler, 2003;
Tyler et al., 2010). However, some scholars began to challenge this
conceptualization when they observed that trust and obligation to
obey loaded onto different scales when items for both constructs were
factor analyzed simultaneously (for example, see Gau, 2011; Johnson
et al., 2014; Pryce et al., 2017; Tankebe, 2009). As employed by Sun-
shine and Tyler (2003) and others, legitimacy (trust and obligation
to obey) was then used as a mediating variable to predict the relative
effects of normative factors of policing (e.g., procedural justice) and
instrumental factors of policing (e.g., performance and risk of sanc-
tioning) on certain outcomes, such as satisfaction, compliance, and
cooperation with police. This was the “causal” order of perceptions
of policing research for a long period. But as scholars began to chal-
lenge this “causal” order, research studies began to examine the rela-
tive effects of normative and instrumental factors of policing directly
on satisfaction, compliance, and cooperation with police, as well
as empowerment of police (for example, see Grant & Pryce, 2020;
Pryce, 2018, 2019; Pryce & Grant, 2020). Some scholars also began
to use obligation to obey as the sole measure of legitimacy (Kochel,
2012; Kochel et al., 2013), whereas others had used trust as the sole
measure of legitimacy (Boateng, 2018; Pryce, 2018, 2019). Because
legitimacy has been conceptualized and measured in so many differ-

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

democratic societies tend to present a stronger and more
robust relationship between legal authorities and citizens
because of the element of trust between both parties (Gold-
smith, 2005). Indeed, trust is vital to the stability of demo-
cratic societies, the integrity of the legal apparatus (e.g.,
police, courts, and corrections), and the smooth operations
of the police. Although Jamaica remains a democracy on
paper, policing in that country is anything but “democratic,”
with the rich and powerful receiving better treatment from
the police than the poor and underprivileged do (Harriott,
2000; Reisig & Lloyd, 2009; Riley, 2005). According to
the 2013 Jamaican National Crime Victimization Survey
(JNCVS), “three out of every four respondents (75.5%)
believe that the police treat poor people worse than wealthy
people” (Wortley & Seepersad, 2013, p. 7). In fact, this dis-
crepancy between what the Jamaican police are expected to
do and what they actually do (e.g., the inequitable delivery
of police services to community members) is one reason
why Jamaican citizens exhibit low levels of trust in their
local police (see Reisig & Lloyd, 2009).
Literature Review
Trust in the Police
It is important for researchers to test community members’
attitudes toward the police because police–public collabora-
tion is vital for co-producing security in local communities,
as the police are not able to solve all of society’s security
problems alone (Chenane & Wright, 2018; Hamm et al.,
2017). The importance of citizens’ trust in their countries’
police has been documented in many parts of the globe,
including the United States (Macdonald & Stokes, 2006;
Pryce & Chenane, 2021; Tyler, 2005), Europe (van Craen,
2013; van Craen & Skogan, 2015), Asia (Lai et al., 2010;
Sun et al., 2014), Australia (Sargeant et al., 2014), and
Africa (Tankebe, 2008). These studies, among others, have
pointed to the quintessential role of citizens’ trust in the
police’s ability to elicit support from community members.
A number of studies have noted that community mem-
bers are unlikely to trust the police unless the police are
seen as doing their jobs effectively (Pryce & Chenane, 2021;
Sargeant et al., 2014). Although many research studies have
pointed to the important role of procedural justice in improv-
ing the relationship between community members and the
police (Grant & Pryce, 2020; Pryce, 2018; Sunshine & Tyler,
Footnote 1 (continued)
ent ways (for example, see Kochel et al., 2013; Tankebe, 2013), we
chose to retain the “sacrosanctity” of the trust variable in the current
paper, rather than call it legitimacy, as other scholars had done.
13
International Criminology
2003), other studies, primarily among some ethnic groups
or in postcolonial societies, have shown police effectiveness
to be more important than procedural justice (Murphy &
Cherney, 2011; Pryce et al., 2017; Tankebe, 2009). In fact,
Tankebe (2009) and Murphy and Cherney (2011) found that
procedural justice was “ineffective” in their respective sam-
ples. As a result, we argue that procedural justice remains
only one of several theoretical underpinnings, or conduits,
that engender improved relations between citizens and the
police. Thus, procedural justice was not examined in the
current study, but also because it was empirically indistinct
from trust, the current study’s endogenous variable, as noted
in the “Method” section of our paper.
Research has shown that higher levels of trust in the
police and the larger criminal justice system lead to a greater
willingness to: cooperate and comply with the police (Tyler
et al., 2010), call for assistance or report non-crime emergen-
cies (Tankebe, 2008; Tyler & Jackson, 2014), and empower
the police (Moule et al., 2019). Conversely, the absence of
trust between community members and the police engenders
hostility (Pryce & Chenane, 2021) and an unwillingness to
cooperate with police (Tankebe, 2008). Studies conducted
in different parts of the world have consistently shown dif-
ferences in how much trust and confidence the public has in
their local police officers and agencies (Goldsmith, 2005;
Macdonald & Stokes, 2006; van Craen & Skogan, 2015).
Trust is a multi-pronged concept (PytlikZillig et al.,
2016), with Tyler and colleagues’ work perhaps the most
visible in the extant criminological literature. To understand
trust better, Tyler and colleagues have classified the concept
as either institutional trust or motive-based trust. Institu-
tional trust is linked to the public’s views that the police
and other legal authorities are honest and competent (Tyler,
1990, 2005; Tyler & Huo, 2002). There is ample empirical
evidence that demonstrates the positive link between institu-
tional trust and the willingness to cooperate and comply with
the law and legal authorities, including the police (Sunshine
& Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2005; Tyler et al., 2010). Motive-based
trust, on the other hand, suggests that the public views offic-
ers as caring and altruistic, and that police do their best to
address the needs of community members (Tyler, 2005).
Like institutional trust, motive-based trust also leads to the
public’s willingness to accept officers’ decisions (Tyler &
Huo, 2002).
Scholars generally agree that trust in the police plays an
indispensable role in how well the police are able to serve
their local communities (Nix et al., 2015). As mutual trust
develops and grows between the police and the policed,
officers are able to perform their roles more effectively in
the community because of community members’ greater
willingness to cooperate and comply with the police (Gold-
smith, 2005; Spalek, 2010). Personal encounters and vicar-
ious experiences with the police also affect the levels of
International Criminology
trust and confidence citizens repose in the police (Epp et al.,
2014; Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). The vast amounts of trust
research across the globe have unfailingly linked perceptions
of police during encounters with the police with distrust
for officers (Anderson, 1999; Boateng et al., 2016; Pryce
& Chenane, 2021; Sargeant et al., 2014). Thus, we exam-
ine in the current study the link between experiences with
police and trust in police, especially in a region that has been
understudied by scholars and researchers.
Instrumental Factors of Policing
Tyler’s (1990) argument that perspectives of policing fall
into two major strands—normative and instrumental—has
been subjected to empirical investigations in the United
States and around the world. Based on those studies, police
effectiveness (performance), risk of sanctioning, and dis-
tributive justice fall under instrumental models of policing
(Nix et al., 2015; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler & Wakslak,
2004).
Police Effectiveness, Risk of Sanctioning, and Distributive
Justice
Police effectiveness and risk of sanctioning are considered
instrumental models of policing because some citizens are
unwilling to accept the police as legitimate unless the lat-
ter can solve crimes and prevent disorder in the commu-
nity. As expatiated by Sunshine and Tyler (2003), the risk
of sanctioning and effectiveness “suggest that the police
gain acceptance when they are viewed by the public as (1)
creating credible sanctioning threats for those who break
rules (risk), [and] effectively controlling crime and criminal
behavior (performance)” (p. 514). When people believe that
the police are effective at crime control and are doing all
they can to eliminate/suppress criminality in the community,
they are more likely to cooperate with and assist the police to
solve crimes. Furthermore, citizens may continually evaluate
their likelihood of being sanctioned for wrongdoing, which,
in turn, may bolster or weaken their sense of obligation to
obey the police (Pryce et al., 2017). Pryce et al. (2017) added
that the fear of arrest by the police may increase the percep-
tion of the risk for unlawful behavior in the community. On
the contrary, those community members who believe that
the police are not likely to apprehend them for engaging in
criminal behavior may feel less obligated to obey the police.
Distributive justice, the third instrumental factor of polic-
ing noted in the present study, refers to citizens’ assessments
of the way the police distribute their services in the commu-
nity (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). Citizens expect that because
the police are funded by taxpayers, the police would distrib-
ute their services fairly to all community members. Nix et al.
(2015) observed that distributive justice is an antecedent
of trust, as distributive justice addresses fairness of out-
comes, as opposed to procedural justice, which focuses on
the fairness of the process of interactions between police
and community members. Brooks-Crew et al. (2021) noted
that distributive justice addresses citizens’ perceptions of
fairness of outcomes when compared to the outcomes others
received under similar conditions. For example, the expecta-
tion of outcome fairness encompasses the belief that both
the rich and poor should have equal treatment under the law,
and that one’s status in society, or one’s zip code, should
not determine how seriously police take one’s complaint.
Sarat (1977) argued that citizens’ willingness to support the
police is inextricably tied to the expectation that police ser-
vices would be distributed responsibly and impartially in
the community.
Experiences with the Police
Citizens’ evaluations of the police are influenced by
police–public interactions (Dai et al., 2019; Weitzer &
Tuch, 2002). Thus, unpleasant experiences at the hands
of the police would almost always lead to poorer ratings
of the police (Tyler & Huo, 2002; Weitzer & Tuch, 2005).
Interestingly, citizens’ direct experiences with the police are
not the only types of experiences that affect evaluations of
the police (Tyler & Huo, 2002). Indeed, vicarious experi-
ences also matter when it comes to assessments of the police
(Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). As such, both personal and vicari-
ous experiences provide a broader picture than either type
of experience alone when assessing community members’
views of the police. Discussing the importance of citizens’
experiences with police, Weitzer and Tuch (2005) argued:
“Such experiences may be internalized or vicariously expe-
rienced by an individual and may, in turn, be communicated
to yet other friends, family members, acquaintances, and
neighbors, amplifying the effect of the initial experience”
(p. 283). As a result of these theoretical frameworks in the
extant literature, we examine the relative impacts of three
instrumental factors of policing (police effectiveness, risk
of sanctioning, and distributive justice) and experiences
with police (personal and vicarious) on trust in the Jamai-
can police.
Policing in Jamaica
Jamaica, a Caribbean country located to the south of Cuba,
earned its independence from Great Britain in 1962. The
country’s police force, formally known as the Jamaican Con-
stabulary Force (JCF) and presently led by Major General
Antony B. Anderson, was established in 1716 (JCF, 2021).
An 11,000-member force, with five divisional headquar-
ters and 19 stations, the JCF’s motto is “Serve, Protect and
13

Reassure” (JCF, 2021). The JCF has had female officers
since 1949, established a Canine Division in 1954, formed
a Strike Force in 1962 to address riots and public disorders,
and created a Public Safety Division in 2018 to address the
increasing rates of disorder and restore the rule of law in
the public domain (JCF, 2021). The JCF was initially estab-
lished to protect the colonial powers from the proletariat and
locals, and to prevent uprisings that may threaten the wealth
of landowners and the colonial authorities (Chambers, 2014;
Nelson, 2017). Regrettably, the JCF has remained, in the
opinions of scholars, an authoritarian vehicle for crushing
dissent and controlling the local population (Harriott, 2000;
Nelson, 2017).
Examining the antecedents of trust in the Jamaican police
is important because Jamaica is riddled with violent crime,
which remains a major source of worry for both the police
and the citizenry (Harriott, 2003; Nelson, 2017). In fact,
high rates of violent crime point to the need to understand
what factors might lead to improved police–community rela-
tions to reduce crime. The lack of trust in the police means
that the police are unlikely to get the sort of comprehensive
assistance they need from the citizenry to solve crimes and
keep community members safe. As expatiated by Chenane
and Wright (2018), “[p]olice officers can influence crime
rates via several mechanisms with legitimacy being one such
avenue” (p. 16), regardless of geopolitical or geographical
contexts. Underfunding of and lack of adequate resources
for the Jamaican police (Nelson, 2017) may also lead to
the police’s inability to effectively deal with violent crime,
which in turn may affect the legitimacy of the police in the
eyes of the citizenry (Reisig & Lloyd, 2009).
Reisig and Lloyd (2009) attributed the origins of vio-
lent crime in Jamaica to economic problems in the 1980s
and 1990s, which caused thousands of Jamaicans in manu-
facturing jobs to be laid off (see also Price, 2004; Sives,
2002). This turn of events forced many of these previously
employed workers to leave the capital city of Kingston. In
the process, some of those citizens left behind in Kingston
suffered even higher levels of poverty, and the structural
inequities that resulted from job losses for many contributed
to the rise in criminality, including violent crime (Harriott,
2003; Reisig & Lloyd, 2009). Although the JCF was aware
of the rise in violent crime, it lacked the resources, including
the personnel, to tackle the violence, resulting in a further
erosion of the JCF’s legitimacy in the eyes of victims and
the larger community.
Police brutality, a common feature of postcolonial soci-
eties and a source of worry for Jamaicans, has led to the
worsening of police–public relations in Jamaica (see Fernald
& Meeks-Gardner, 2003). Compounding the issue of police
brutality are other factors such as the “proliferation of fire-
arms and ammunition, the transshipment of illegal narcotics,
gang violence, and in recent years international extortion”
13
International Criminology
(Nelson, 2017, p. 26). Police officers have repeatedly been
accused of extrajudicial killings by ordinary citizens, yet
officers accused of such heinous crimes are rarely prosecuted
and/or convicted by the country’s legal apparatus (Reisig &
Lloyd, 2009). As a result, Jamaican citizens’ lack of trust
in the JCF has hindered police–citizen relations. Because
of the trust deficits that exist between the public and the
police, studies that elucidate how policing can be improved
in Jamaica would continue to hold an important place in
policing studies in the Caribbean region.
Current Study
The present study employs a non-probability survey to
measure perceptions of police in a sample of 163 Jamaican
citizens domiciled in Jamaica. The following research ques-
tions are examined in the paper: (1) What are the roles of
instrumental factors of policing in Jamaicans’ willingness to
trust their country’s police? (2) Do personal and vicarious
experiences predict trust in the Jamaican police? (3) What
are the relative effects of instrumental factors of policing and
experiences with police on citizen perceptions of trust in the
Jamaican police? Answers to these questions would propel
the policing literature forward in the Caribbean, a region
that has not been given adequate attention by scholars in the
policing literature.
Method
Participants and Procedures
The data for the present study were drawn from a larger
survey of Jamaican citizens2 in Jamaica.
Institutional review board (IRB) approval was sought
and received before the study commenced in the summer of
2017. The cross-sectional data were provided by 163 citizens
who are residents of several parishes in the country: King-
ston, St. Andrew, St. Catherine, Trelawny, St. James, and
Westmoreland. The sample was drawn from students and
employees at the following institutions: The University of
the West Indies, Mona Campus (Kingston and St. Andrew
Parishes), Montego Bay Community College (St. James Par-
ish), Portmore Community College (St. Catherine Parish),
and Heart National Training Agency (Trelawny and St. Ann
Parishes). The second author distributed a paper survey in-
person to the participants, who filled out the survey on the
spot. In accordance with IRB requirements, the respondents
2
The second author, a Jamaican native, collected the current data in
the summer of 2017.
International Criminology
were at least 18 years old. Out of 205 questionnaires dis-
tributed, 163 were completed and returned, for an 80 per-
cent response rate. The study employed a non-probability
sample, and thus lacked true representativeness. However,
non-probability sampling is a valid method of data collection
that has been used extensively by researchers (Menjivar &
Bejarano, 2004; Pryce et al., 2017; Wu et al., 2011).
Sample
The sample included 47.2% (n = 77) females and 52.8%
(n = 86) males. Respondents ranged in age from 18 to
60 years (mean = 27.56, standard deviation [SD] = 11.03).
The majority of the respondents, 94.4% (n = 136), had a
high school diploma/equivalency or better; only 5.6% (n = 8)
of respondents had less than a high school diploma. More
respondents, 59% (n = 73) noted that they were homeowners,
compared to renters 41% (n = 51). Finally, 68% (n = 73) of
respondents earned less than $50,000 in Jamaican dollars;
32% (n = 34) of respondents earned more than $50,000.
Factor Analysis
To test for the factor loadings in the current study, the items
measuring trust, performance, risk of sanctioning, and dis-
tributive justice were simultaneously subjected to Princi-
pal Axis Factoring (PAF), with Promax rotation3 (see, for
example, Pryce & Grant, 2020). The Kaiser–Meyer–Olkin
measure of sampling adequacy was 0.818 (Kaiser, 1970,
1974), and Bartlett’s Test of Sphericity reached statistical
significance (Bartlett, 1954), which meant the data were
suitable for the analysis performed (Hutcheson & Sofroniou,
1999; Pallant, 2010). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis
(PA) was employed to strengthen the results from the PAF
(Watkins, 2000). PA helps to confirm the number of fac-
tors extracted (Watkins, 2000), and often gives an accurate
result when factor analysis is performed (Matsunaga, 2010).
Indeed, PA gives a more accurate number of factor load-
ings than either Kaiser’s criterion or Cattell’s (1966) scree
test (Pallant, 2010). When factor analysis was performed,
trust and procedural justice loaded together when items for
procedural justice were added to the items for the four con-
structs—trust, performance, risk of sanctioning, and distrib-
utive justice—noted in the previous paragraph. As a result,
procedural justice was excluded from the current study,
as the goal was to examine trust as the study’s dependent
3
According to Tabachnick and Fidell (2007), a sample with at least
150 cases is ideal for factor analysis, provided that the solutions have
several high loading marker variables, which our sample demon-
strates (Pallant, 2010). Gorsuch (1983) noted that a sample size of
100 should suffice for factor analysis; we have a sample size of 163 in
the current study. Factor loadings were set at 0.40 or higher.
variable. Although procedural justice was not examined in
the current paper, we chose to discuss this overlap between
trust and procedural justice because other studies had also
noted that the two constructs loaded together when factor
analyzed simultaneously (for example, see Gau, 2011; Grant
& Pryce, 2020; Johnson et al., 2014; Pryce, 2018). In other
words, trust and procedural justice are conceptually dispa-
rate, but empirically indistinct in some studies, including the
current study. Thus, we encourage researchers to continue
to refine these scales for improved discriminant validity.
Table 1 shows the factor loadings for the variables employed
in the current study.
Variables
Trust in the Police
All the variables used in the current study were adapted from
prior studies (see, for example, Pryce et al., 2017; Sunshine
& Tyler, 2003). Trust was measured using four items. A four-
point Likert-type scale—(1) strongly disagree, (2) disagree,
(3) agree, and (4) strongly agree—was employed to measure
trust. The scale was coded so that higher scores reflected
higher levels of trust. The four survey items were: (1) The
police in Jamaica are trustworthy; (2) The police in Jamaica
have the confidence of members of the public; (3) The police
in Jamaica are usually honest; (4) The police in Jamaica
always act within the law. These responses were then com-
bined to create a trust index (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.86; mean
inter-item correlation = 0.605).
Distributive Justice
Distributive justice was measured using three items. A four-
point Likert-type scale—(1) strongly disagree, (2) disa-
gree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree—was employed to
measure this variable. The scale was coded so that higher
scores reflected higher levels of distributive justice. These
responses were then combined to create a distributive jus-
tice index (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.8; mean inter-item corre-
lation = 0.565). The items were: (1) The police provide the
same quality of service to all people; (2) The police enforce
the law consistently when dealing with all people; (3) The
police make sure people receive outcomes they deserve
under the law.
Performance (Effectiveness)
A four-point Likert-type scale—(1) strongly disagree, (2)
disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree—was used to
measure police performance. The scale was coded so that
higher scores reflected higher levels of performance. The six
items were: (1) The police are effective at controlling gang
13
 International Criminology

Table 1  Promax-rotated principal axis factoring (PAF)

Performance
The police are effective at controlling gang violence 0.699
The police are effective at controlling drugs 0.811
The police are effective at controlling gun violence 0.825
The police are effective at controlling burglary 0.703
The police are effective at responding to calls for assistance from victims of crime 0.741
The police are effective at assisting victims of crime 0.703
Distributive justice
The police provide the same quality of service to all people 0.633
The police enforce the law consistently when dealing with all people 0.977
The police make sure people receive outcomes they deserve under the law 0.592
Risk of sanctioning
You would be caught and punished if you parked your car illegally 0.682
You would be caught and punished if you disposed of your trash illegally 0.497
You would be caught and punished if you made noise at night 0.558
You would be caught and punished if you sped or broke traffic laws 0.774
You would be caught and punished if you purchased stolen items on the street 0.677
You would be caught and punished if you used marijuana and cocaine in public places 0.687
Trust in the police
The police in Jamaica are trustworthy 0.787
The police in Jamaica have the confidence of members of the public 0.541
The police in Jamaica are usually honest 0.838
The police in Jamaica always act within the law 0.521

N = 163. Only factor loadings > 0.40 are displayed

violence; (2) The police are effective at controlling drugs;
(3) The police are effective at controlling gun violence; (4)
The police are effective at controlling burglary; (5) The
police respond quickly to calls for assistance from victims
of crime; (6) The police are effective at assisting victims of
crime. The questions were then combined to create a per-
formance index (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.9; mean inter-item
correlation = 0.545).
Risk of Sanctioning
A four-point Likert-type scale—(1) strongly disagree, (2)
disagree, (3) agree, and (4) strongly agree—was used to
measure risk of sanctioning. The scale was coded so that
higher scores reflected higher levels of risk of sanctioning.
The six items were: (1) You would be caught and punished
if you parked your car illegally; (2) You would be caught
and punished if you disposed of your trash illegally; (3)
You would be caught and punished if you made noise at
night; (4) You would be caught and punished if you sped or
broke traffic laws; (5) You would be caught and punished if
you purchased stolen items on the street; (6) You would be
caught and punished if you used marijuana and cocaine in
public places. The questions were then combined to create
a risk of sanctioning index (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.8; mean
inter-item correlation = 0.417).
Personal Experiences with the Police
Adapted from Weitzer and Tuch (2005), the three items were
measured as a dichotomous variable: Yes = 1; No = 0. The
items were: (1) Have the police ever used insulting language
toward you? (2) Have you ever been stopped by the police
on the street without good reason? (3) Have the police ever
used excessive force against you? These items were sub-
sequently combined to create a personal experience with
the police index (Cronbach’s Alpha = 0.8; mean inter-item
correlation = 0.515). We then dichotomized the composite
measure into one or more experiences (coded 1) and no
experiences (coded 0).
Vicarious Experiences with the Police
Also adapted from Weitzer and Tuch (2005), the three items
were measured as a dichotomous variable: Yes = 1; No = 0.
The items were: (1) Have the police ever used insulting lan-
guage toward anyone else in your household? (2) Has anyone
else in your household ever been stopped on the street by
the police without good reason? (3) Have the police ever

13
International Criminology

Table 2  Descriptive statistics of the variables

Items Responses Range M SD

Performance
The police are effective at controlling gang violence 159 1–4 1.82 0.792
The police are effective at controlling drugs 159 1–4 1.97 0.860
The police are effective at controlling gun violence 159 1–4 1.83 0.805
The police are effective at controlling burglary 150 1–4 1.98 0.815
The police are effective at responding to calls for assistance from victims of crime 152 1–4 1.91 0.976
The police are effective at assisting victims of crime 151 1–4 2.26 0.885
Distributive justice
The police provide the same quality of service to all people 160 1–4 1.74 0.703
The police enforce the law consistently when dealing with all people 160 1–4 1.93 0.732
The police make sure people receive outcomes they deserve under the law 160 1–4 2.09 0.783
Risk of sanctioning
You would be caught and punished if you parked your car illegally 157 1–4 2.29 1.014
You would be caught and punished if you disposed of your trash illegally 160 1–4 1.73 0.881
You would be caught and punished if you made noise at night 161 1–4 1.90 0.896
You would be caught and punished if you sped or broke traffic laws 154 1–4 2.58 0.927
You would be caught and punished if you purchased stolen items on the street 160 1–4 2.06 0.976
You would be caught and punished if you used marijuana and cocaine in public places 160 1–4 2.21 1.107
Trust in the police
The police in Jamaica are trustworthy 162 1–4 1.83 0.831
The police in Jamaica have the confidence of members of the public 161 1–4 1.88 0.745
The police in Jamaica are usually honest 161 1–4 1.91 0.786
The police in Jamaica always act within the law 160 1–4 1.80 0.799
Personal experiences with the police
Have the police ever used insulting language toward you? 152 0–1 0.36 0.480
Have you ever been stopped by the police on the street without good reason? 153 0–1 0.54 0.500
Have the police ever used excessive force against you? 152 0–1 0.28 0.452
Vicarious experiences with the police
Have the police ever used insulting language toward anyone else in your household? 148 0–1 0.40 0.491
Has anyone else in your household ever been stopped on the street by the police without 150 0–1 0.61 0.490
good reason?
Have the police used excessive force against anyone else in your household? 149 0–1 0.38 0.486

used excessive force against anyone else in your house-
hold? These items were subsequently combined to create
a vicarious experience with the police index (Cronbach’s
Alpha = 0.7; mean inter-item correlation = 0.406). We then
dichotomized the composite measure into one or more expe-
riences (coded 1) and no experiences (coded 0). Table 2
shows the variables used in the regression analyses, based on
the results of factor analysis. This also means that items that
did not load as hypothesized were not included in Table 2.
Control Variables
The following control variables were included in the cur-
rent study to provide unbiased estimates of the effects of the
independent variables on the dependent variable:
(1) Gender This was a dummy variable: Female = 0,
Male = 1.
(2) Age This was measured as a continuous variable.
(3) Educational attainment This was an ordinal meas-
ure: Less than high school = 1, High school diploma/
equivalency = 2, Associate’s degree = 3, Bachelor’s
degree = 4, Postgraduate or professional degree (e.g.,
Ph.D. holder, lawyer, medical doctor) = 5.
(4) Homeownership This was a dummy variable:
Renter = 0, Homeowner = 1.
(5) Annual income This was an ordinal measure: Less
than $20,000 = 1, $20,000–$29,999 = 2, $30,000–
$39,999 = 3, $40,000–49,999 = 4, $50,000–$74,999 = 5,
$75,000–$99,999 = 6, $100,000 or greater = 7.

13
 International Criminology

Table 3  Bivariate correlation results for the variables

Scale items 1 2 3 4 5 6 Skewness S.E Kurtosis S.E

1. Performance 1 0.739 0.208 0.639 0.413

2. Distributive justice 0.393** 1 0.602 0.191 0.416 0.380
3. Risk of sanctioning 0.088 0.135 1 0.285 0.200 − 0.209 0.397
4. Trust in the police 0.348** 0.567** 0.043 1 0.756 0.194 0.727 0.385
5. Personal experience 0.024 0.058 − 0.028 − 0.190* 1 0.432 0.197 − 1.338 0.392
6. Vicarious experience − 0.053 − 0.016 − 0.053 − 0.128 0.484** 1 0.204 0.201 − 1.369 0.399

The skewness and kurtosis values for the variables, especially the dependent variable—trust—are near normal (less than an absolute value of 1,
although some scholars posit that near-normality extends to an absolute value of 2 (see, for example, Reisig et al., 2007)
*p < 0.05; **p < 0.01, two-tailed

Findings In model 2, instrumental factors—distributive justice,

police performance, and risk of sanctioning—were added
Bivariate Results to the regression model. In this model, homeownership sta-
tus (β = − 0.186, p < 0.05), distributive justice (β = 0.508,
Table 3 presents the Pearson’s r coefficients for the substan- p < 0.001), and performance (β = 0.185, p < 0.05) were
tive variables employed in the current study. The correla-
tion results show, for example, that those respondents who Table 4  Predictors of trust in the Jamaican police
viewed the police as providing distributive justice were more
Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3
likely to trust the police.
Controls
Analytic Strategy Gender − 0.087 − 0.137 − 0.093
(0.141) (0.115) (0.115)
Due to the limitations of correlation results, and because the Age 0.005 0.098 0.120
relationship between any two variables may be spurious due (0.007) (0.006) (0.006)
to the presence of a number of control variables, all the vari- Education 0.087 0.038 0.024
ables in the current study were subjected to ordinary least- (0.056) (0.046) (0.045)
squares (OLS) regression analyses (Grant & Pryce, 2020; Homeownership − 0.217* − 0.186* − 0.195*
Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tankebe, 2009). Specifically, we (0.145) (0.121) (0.121)
employed three OLS regression models to isolate the inde- Annual income 0.093 0.051 0.053
pendent effect of each independent variable on the depend- (0.024) (0.020) (0.020)
ent variable. Multicollinearity occurs when the independent Instrumental factors
variables in a regression equation are highly correlated, and Performance 0.185* 0.187*
this can affect the interpretation of the findings (Hutcheson (0.091) (0.089)
& Sofroniou, 1999). However, none of the correlation results Risk of sanctioning − 0.076 − 0.084
between the dependent variable and independent variables, (0.081) (0.079)
and between any two independent variables, exceeded 0.70, Distributive justice 0.508*** 0.522***
so all of the independent variables and the dependent vari- (0.100) (0.098)
able were retained for analysis (Pallant, 2010). Experiences with the police
Personal experience − 0.242*
Regression Results (0.165)
Vicarious experience 0.070
In model 1, we analyzed the effects of the control varia- (0.172)
bles (gender, age, educational level, homeownership status, R2 0.061 0.409 0.453
and annual income) on trust in the Jamaican police. Only
Entries are standardized coefficients, and standard errors are in paren-
homeownership status (β = − 0.217, p < 0.05) was statisti- theses
cally significant in the regression model. Thus, compared to Tolerance values are greater than 0.10 and VIF values are less than
renters, homeowners were less likely to trust the Jamaican 10, so there appear to be no multicollinearity problems in the regres-
police. This model explained 6% of the variation in trust in sion equations
the police (Table 4). *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01, ***p < 0.001 (two-tailed test)

13
International Criminology
significantly related to trust in the Jamaican police. Thus,
homeowners were less trusting of the police, citizens who
believe that their police were engaged in distributive justice
were more likely to trust the police, and citizens who believe
that the police were effective at doing their jobs were more
likely to trust the police. Gender, age, educational level,
annual income, and risk of sanctioning were not statistically
significant in the regression model. This model explained
41% of the variation in trust in the police.
In model 3, experiences with police—personal and vicari-
ous—were added to the regression model. In this model,
homeownership status (β = − 0.195, p < 0.05), distribu-
tive justice (β = 0.522, p < 0.001), performance (β = 0.187,
p < 0.05), and personal experiences with police (β = − 0.242,
p < 0.05) were significantly related to trust in the Jamaican
police. Thus, compared to renters, homeowners were less
trusting of their country’s police. In addition, citizens who
believe that their police were engaged in distributive justice
and citizens who believe that the police were effective at
doing their jobs were more likely to trust the police. Lastly,
Jamaican citizens who reported that they had personal
encounters with the police were less trusting of the police.
Gender, age, educational level, annual income, risk of sanc-
tioning, and vicarious experiences with the police were not
statistically significant in the regression model. This model
explained 45% of the variation in trust in the police.
Limitations
Although the current study contributes to the extant policing
literature, it has limitations. First, we employed a non-proba-
bility sample, which means we cannot confidently generalize
our results to the entire Jamaican population. Second, the
current study was cross-sectional in nature, thereby elimi-
nating any possibility of determining causality. Third, our
sample was small; thus, we encourage other researchers to
examine the same ideas with larger, probability samples
that would provide more robust and generalizable findings.
Fourth, our results mainly reflected participants’ opinions
about, rather than actual experiences with, the Jamaican
police. As a result, a study that examines participants’ actual
experiences holistically may produce results different from
those found in the current study.
Discussion and Conclusion
Based on our search of the extant literature, we believe that
this is the first study to examine the relative effects of instru-
mental factors of policing (distributive justice, police perfor-
mance, and risk of sanctioning) and experiences with police
(personal and vicarious) on trust in the Jamaican police. As
a result, the current study makes a significant contribution to
policing research, especially in the Caribbean. With policing
under heightened scrutiny in many areas across the globe,
including Jamaica, researchers have deemed efforts to under-
stand factors that either improve or diminish the relationship
between the police and local communities pivotal to com-
munity safety and security (Grant & Pryce, 2020; Johnson
et al., 2014; Reisig & Lloyd, 2009; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003;
Tankebe, 2009).
In answering our first research question, the results of the
current study show that police performance and distributive
justice are related to Jamaicans’ trust in their police force.
In other words, as Jamaicans’ perceptions of police perfor-
mance and police distributive justice increase, so do their
levels of trust in their country’s police. These results thus
point to the importance of both performance (Pryce et al.,
2017; Tankebe, 2009) and distributive justice (Sunshine &
Tyler, 2003) as salient components of the instrumental fac-
tors of policing. In answering our second research question,
we note that personal experience, but not vicarious experi-
ence, was related to trust in the Jamaican police. Several
empirical studies have pointed to the role of personal expe-
rience in citizen assessments of the police (Pryce, 2018;
Weitzer, 2000; Weitzer & Tuch, 2002, 2005).
In answering our third research question, we examined
the relative effects of the instrumental factors of policing
(distributive justice, performance, and risk of sanctioning)
and experiences (personal and vicarious) with police on
trust in the Jamaican police. Distributive justice exerted the
greatest influence on trust in the police, followed by per-
sonal experiences and performance, in that order. Regard-
ing distributive justice, this significant finding shows how
vital it is to community members that the police provide ser-
vices equitably to all community members, enforce the law
uniformly, and make sure outcomes under the law are not
discriminatory. Indeed, distributive justice, which has been
shown to predict trust in prior research (Nix et al., 2015;
Tyler & Huo, 2002), is a common-sense approach, as all
human beings possess self-worth and therefore should be
shown respect and provided equitable service by the police,
irrespective of status, wealth, or influence in the commu-
nity. For example, community members are wary of both
underpolicing and overpolicing, which are more likely to
occur in poor communities than in rich ones (Burke, 2013;
Pryce & Chenane, 2021). When any section of Jamaican
society experiences either overpolicing or underpolicing, it
is going to feel targeted, leading to a lowering of trust in the
police. Overpolicing and underpolicing conjure in people
on the receiving end the feeling that they are under constant
suspicion or surveillance, a situation that African Americans
are very familiar with in the United States (see Brunson &
Wade, 2019; Pryce & Chenane, 2021).
The distributive justice–trust nexus is robust, although
the performance and personal experiences variables were
13

also significantly related to trust. The strong relationship
between distributive justice and trust has another impor-
tant dimension: due to the fact that complaints of brutality
against Jamaican officers are well documented by scholars
(Fernald & Meeks-Gardner, 2003; Nelson, 2017; Reisig &
Lloyd, 2009), officers’ embrace of distributive justice should
mitigate citizens’ concerns and lessen police brutality in the
community (Harriott, 2000). Moreover, officers who espouse
the principles of distributive justice—the provision of the
same quality of service to all people, the consistent enforce-
ment of the law when dealing with all people, and the deliv-
ery of the outcomes community members deserve under
the law—are less likely to brutalize their fellow citizens, as
such officers are likely to believe in the self-worth of all citi-
zens, whether such citizens are rich or poor, live in wealthy
neighborhoods, hold power in the community, or belong to
the working class. There is also an important policy con-
sideration in this finding: Jamaican officers should not only
take classes on procedural justice (Reisig & Lloyd, 2009) at
the academy, but elements of distributive justice should be
included in the curriculum as well, as this approach would
engender greater trust in the police by the citizenry. In the
current study, the effects of performance and personal expe-
riences did not diminish the impact of distributive justice on
trust, which suggests that the relationship between distribu-
tive justice and trust is quite robust, as noted earlier.
Jamaican citizens are willing to trust their police if they
hold the view that the police are effective, as shown by the
significant relationship between performance and trust in
Models 2 and 3. Grant and Pryce (2020), for example, found
that performance exerted a stronger influence than proce-
dural justice did on Jamaican citizens’ obligation to obey
their country’s police. In direct reference to Pryce et al.’s
(2017) study, Grant and Pryce (2020) argued that obliga-
tion to obey has been used as a proxy for police legitimacy
by several scholars. For example, Tyler (2006) argued that
obligation was the most direct measure of legitimacy. Treat-
ing obligation to obey as legitimacy, it can be argued that
the participants in the current study would grant the police
greater legitimacy if they believed that their country’s offic-
ers did their jobs effectively.
Finally, the inverse relationship between personal expe-
riences with police and trust is not unexpected, as citizens
who have had negative experiences with police are less
likely to see the police as deserving of their trust. Indeed,
the extant criminological literature is replete with studies
that point to the negative connection between direct experi-
ences with police and views of police (Li et al., 2016; Pryce,
2018; Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). Because the majority of citi-
zens would likely only interact with the police vicariously,
direct experiences with police become even more impor-
tant. This is an opportunity for the police to display good
judgment and treat citizens with respect, which will then
13
International Criminology
be vicariously relayed to others in the community: the more
positive the direct encounter between an officer and a citi-
zen, the more likely it is that such an interaction would be
positively relayed to, or assessed by, others. Personal experi-
ences may have a stronger effect than vicarious experiences
on assessments of police (Pryce, 2018; Tyler & Huo, 2002;
Weitzer & Tuch, 2005), as vicarious experiences, although
subjectively satisfying or offensive, simply do not equate to
or result in similar resentment toward the police as personal
experiences do. In other words, a negative encounter with
the police, including unwarranted stops and unlawful vehi-
cle searches, may carry greater trauma than simply learning
or hearing about someone else’s negative encounters with
officers. Overall, the current study suggests that distributive
justice, performance, and personal experiences appear to be
important antecedents of trust in the police, and it would
serve the Jamaican police well to train its officers to: (a)
provide fair outcomes in their interactions with citizens, (b)
do their jobs effectively, and (c) seek positive direct encoun-
ters with citizens.
Acknowledgements We extend our deepest gratitude to the anonymous
reviewers for their time and feedback, which helped to strengthen the
arguments proffered in this paper.
Declarations
Conflict of interest The authors have no conflict(s) of interest to report.
References
Anderson, E. (1999). Code of the street: Decency, violence, and the
moral life of the inner city. WW Norton & Company.
Bartlett, M. S. (1954). A note on the multiplying factors for various
chi-square approximations. Journal of the Royal Statistical Soci-
ety, 16, 296–298.
Boateng, F. D. (2018). Police legitimacy in Africa: A multilevel multi-
national analysis. Policing and Society, 28, 1105–1120.
Boateng, F. D., Lee, H. D., & Abess, H. (2016). Analyzing citizens’
reported levels of confidence in the police: A cross-national
study of public attitudes toward the police in the United States
and South Korea. Asian Journal of Criminology, 11, 289–308.
Brooks-Crew, D., Rajakaruna, N., & Henry, P. J. (2021). Predicting
police officer reported compliance and willingness to cooperate
with internal affairs units: Application of the relational model
of authority. Policing and Society. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​10439​
463.​2021.​18790​73
Brunson, R. K., & Wade, B. A. (2019). Oh hell no, we don’t talk to the
police. Criminology & Public Policy, 18, 623–648.
Burke, R. H. (2013). Hard cop, soft cop. Routledge.
Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for number of factors. Multivariate
Behavioral Research, 1, 245–276.
Chambers, V. (2014). Securing communities and transforming polic-
ing cultures: A desk study of community policing in Jamaica.
Retrieved from https://​www.​refwo​rld.​org/​pdfid/​53d0c​f2f4.​pdf.
International Criminology
Chenane, J. L., & Wright, E. M. (2018). The role of police officer race/
ethnicity on crime rates in immigrant communities. Race and Jus-
tice. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​21533​68718​777278
Dai, M., Hu, X., & Time, V. (2019). Understanding public satisfaction
with the police: Military background and interactions between
higher education and prior contact with the police. Policing: an
International Journal, 42(4), 571–584.
Epp, C. R., Maynard-Moody, S., & Haider-Markel, D. P. (2014). Pulled
over: How police stops define race and Citizenship. University of
Chicago Press.
Fernald, L., & Meeks-Gardner, J. (2003). Jamaican children’s reports
of violence at school and home. Social and Economic Studies,
52, 12–140.
Gau, J. M. (2011). The convergent and discriminant validity of proce-
dural justice and police legitimacy: An empirical test of core theo-
retical propositions. Journal of Criminal Justice, 39, 489–498.
Goldsmith, A. (2005). Police reform and the problem of trust. Theoreti-
cal Criminology, 9(4), 443–470.
Gorsuch, R. L. (1983). Factor analysis (2nd ed.). LEA.
Grant, L., & Pryce, D. K. (2020). Procedural justice, obligation to obey,
and cooperation with police in a sample of Jamaican citizens.
Police Practice and Research, 21, 368–382.
Hamm, J. A., Trinkner, R., & Carr, J. D. (2017). Fair process, trust, and
cooperation: Moving toward an integrated framework of police
legitimacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(9), 1183–1212.
Harriott, A. (2000). Police and crime control in Jamaica: Problems
of reforming ex-colonial constabularies. University of the West
Indies Press.
Harriott, A. (2003). Social identities and the escalation of homicidal
violence in Jamaica. In A. Harriott (Ed.), Understanding crime
in Jamaica: New challenges for public policy (pp. 89–112). Uni-
versity of the West Indies Press.
Hutcheson, G. D., & Sofroniou, N. (1999). The multivariate social
scientist: Introductory statistics using generalized linear models.
Sage.
Jamaica Constabulary Force (JCF). (2021). History: About us.
Retrieved from https://​jcf.​gov.​jm/​about-​us/​histo​ry/.
Johnson, D., Maguire, E. R., & Kuhns, J. B. (2014). Public perceptions
of the legitimacy of the law and the police: Evidence from the
Caribbean. Law and Society Review, 48(4), 947–978.
Kaiser, H. (1970). A second generation Little Jiffy. Psychometrika,
35, 401–415.
Kaiser, H. (1974). An index of factorial simplicity. Psychometrika,
39, 31–36.
Kochel, T. R. (2012). Can police legitimacy promote collective effi-
cacy? Justice Quarterly, 29, 384–419.
Kochel, T. R., Parks, R., & Mastrofksi, S. D. (2013). Examining police
effectiveness as a precursor to legitimacy and cooperation with
police. Justice Quarterly, 30, 895–925.
Lai, Y.-L., Cao, L., & Zhao, J. S. (2010). The impact of race/ethnic-
ity, neighborhood context, and police/citizen interactions on resi-
dents’ attitudes toward the police. Journal of Criminal Justice,
38, 685–692.
Li, Y., Ren, L., & Luo, F. (2016). Is bad stronger than good? The
impact of police-citizen encounters on public satisfaction with
police. Policing: an International Journal, 39, 109–126.
MacDonald, J., & Stokes, R. J. (2006). Race, social capital, and trust
in the police. Urban Affairs Review, 41(3), 358–375.
Matsunaga, M. (2010). How to factor-analyze your data right: Do’s,
don’ts, and how-to’s. International Journal of Psychological
Research, 3, 97–110.
Menjivar, C., & Bejarano, C. (2004). Latino immigrants’ perceptions
of crime and police authorities in the United States: A case study
from the Phoenix Metropolitan Area. Ethnic and Racial Studies,
27(1), 120–148.
Moule, R. K., Jr., Burruss, G. W., Parry, M. M., & Fox, B. (2019).
Assessing the direct and indirect effects of legitimacy on pub-
lic empowerment of police: A study of public support for police
militarization in America. Law & Society Review, 53, 77–107.
Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2011). Fostering cooperation with the
police: How do ethnic minorities in Australia respond to proce-
dural justice-based policing? Australian & New Zealand Journal
of Criminology, 44, 235–257.
Nelson, K. V. (2017). Behind the frontlines: Occupational stress
and well-being in Jamaican police officers [Doctoral disserta-
tion, Cardiff University]. Retrieved from https://​orca.​cf.​ac.​uk/​
99877/1/​2017n​elson​phd.​pdf.
Nix, J., Wolfe, S. E., Rojek, J., & Kaminski, R. J. (2015). Trust in the
police: The influence of procedural justice and perceived collec-
tive efficacy. Crime & Delinquency, 61(4), 610–640.
Pallant, J. (2010). SPSS survival manual: A step by step guide to data
analysis using SPSS (4th ed.). McGraw Hill.
Price, C. (2004). What the Zeeks uprising reveals: Development
issues, moral economy, and the urban lumpenproletariat in
Jamaica. Urban Anthropology and Studies of Cultural Systems
and World Economic Development, 33, 73–113.
Pryce, D. K. (2018). Does procedural justice influence general sat-
isfaction with police? A study from a hard-to-reach population
of immigrants in the United States. Journal of Crime & Justice,
41, 31–48.
Pryce, D. K. (2019). The relative effects of normative and instrumen-
tal models of policing on police empowerment: Evidence from
a sample of sub-Saharan African immigrants. Criminal Justice
Policy Review, 30, 428–450.
Pryce, D. K., & Chenane, J. L. (2021). Trust and confidence in police
officers and the institution of policing: The views of African
Americans in the American South. Crime & Delinquency,
67(6–7), 808–838.
Pryce, D. K., & Grant, L. (2020). The relative impacts of normative
and instrumental factors of policing on willingness to empower
the police: A study from Jamaica. Journal of Ethnicity in Crimi-
nal Justice, 18, 19–42.
Pryce, D. K., Johnson, D., & Maguire, E. R. (2017). Procedural jus-
tice, obligation to obey, and cooperation with police in a sample
of Ghanaian immigrants. Criminal Justice & Behavior, 44(5),
733–755. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00938​54816​680225
PytlikZillig, L. M., Hamm, J. A., Shockley, E., Herian, M. N., Neal,
T. M. S., Kimbrough, C. D., & Bornstein, B. H. (2016). The
dimensionality of trust-relevant constructs in four institutional
domains: Results from confirmatory factor analyses. Journal of
Trust Research, 6, 111–150.
Reisig, M. D., Bratton, J., & Gertz, M. (2007). The construct validity
and refinement of process-based policing measures. Criminal
Justice and Behavior, 34, 1005–1027.
Reisig, M. D., & Lloyd, C. (2009). Procedural justice, police legiti-
macy, and helping the police to fight crime: Results from a
survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Quarterly, 12(1), 42–62.
Riley, J. C. (2005). Poverty and life expectancy: The Jamaica para-
dox. Cambridge University Press.
Sarat, A. (1977). Studying American legal culture. Law & Society
Review, 11, 427–488.
Sargeant, E., Murphy, K., & Cherney, A. (2014). Ethnicity, trust
and cooperation with police: Testing the dominance of the pro-
cess-based model. European Journal of Criminology, 11(4),
500–524.
Sives, A. (2002). Changing patrons, from politician to drug don: Clien-
telism in downtown Kingston, Jamaica. Latin American Perspec-
tives, 29, 66–89.
Solomon, S. J. (2019). How do the components of procedural justice
and driver race influence encounter-specific perceptions of police
13

legitimacy during traffic stops? Criminal Justice and Behavior,
46(8), 1200–1216.
Spalek, B. (2010). Community policing, trust, and Muslim commu-
nities in relation to “New Terrorism.” Politics & Policy, 38(4),
789–815.
Sun, I. Y., Jou, S., Hou, C. C., & Chang, Y. C. (2014). Public trust in
the police in Taiwan: A test of instrumental and expressive mod-
els. Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology, 47(1),
123–140.
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and
legitimacy in shaping public support for policing. Law and Society
Review, 37, 513–548.
Tabachnick, B. G., & Fidell, L. S. (2007). Using Multivariate Statistics
(5th ed.). Pearson Education.
Tankebe, J. (2008). Police effectiveness and police trustworthiness in
Ghana: An empirical appraisal. Criminology & Criminal Justice,
8(2), 185–202.
Tankebe, J. (2009). Public cooperation with the police in Ghana: Does
procedural fairness matter? Criminology, 47, 701–730.
Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of pub-
lic perceptions of police legitimacy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. Yale University Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2005). Policing in black and white: Ethnic group differ-
ences in trust and confidence in the police. Police Quarterly, 8,
322–342.
Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why people obey the law. Princeton University
Press.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public
cooperation with the police and courts. Russell Sage Foundation.
Tyler, T. R., & Jackson, J. (2014). Popular legitimacy and the exer-
cise of legal authority: Motivating compliance, cooperation, and
engagement. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 20(1), 78–96.
13
View publication stats
International Criminology
Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S., & Huq, A. Z. (2010). Legitimacy and
deterrent effects in counterterrorism policing: A study of Muslim
Americans. Law & Society Review, 44, 365–401.
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.
Van Craen, M. (2013). Explaining majority and minority trust in the
police. Justice Quarterly, 30(6), 1042–1067.
Van Craen, M., & Skogan, W. G. (2015). Differences and similarities
in the explanation of ethnic minority groups’ trust in the police.
European Journal of Criminology, 12(3), 300–323.
Watkins, M. W. (2000). Monte Carlo PCA for parallel analysis [com-
puter software]. Psych Associates.
Weitzer, R. (2000). White, black, or blue cops? Race and citizen
assessments of policer officers. Journal of Criminal Justice, 28,
313–324.
Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2002). Perceptions of racial profiling: Race,
class, and personal experience. Criminology, 40, 435–456.
Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2005). Racially biased policing: Determi-
nants of citizen perceptions. Social Forces, 83, 1009–1030.
Wortley, S., & Seepersad, R. (2013). The 2012–13 Jamaican National
Crime Victimization Survey: Final Report. Report prepared for the
Ministry of National Security, Government of Jamaica. Retrieved
from https://m
​ ns.g​ ov.j​ m/s​ ites/d​ efaul​ t/fi
​ les/n​ otice​ s/J​ NCVS%2​ 0FIN​
AL% ​ 2 0REP ​ O RT% ​ 2 0% ​ 2 8upd ​ a ted% ​ 2 0Oct​ o ber% ​ 2 030% ​ 2 C%​
202013%​29-1.​pdf.
Wu, Y., Sun, I. Y., & Smith, B. W. (2011). Race, immigration, and
policing: Chinese immigrants’ satisfaction with police. Justice
Quarterly, 28, 745–774.