Filtering by
- All Subjects: Legitimacy
- Creators: Bornstein, Brian H.
- Creators: Telep, Cody W.
Many studies testing the effects of procedural justice judgments rely on cross-sectional data. The shortcomings of such a strategy are clear and alternative methodologies are needed. Using a factorial vignette design, this study tests a variety of hypotheses derived from the process-based model of regulation, most of which involve the posited outcomes of procedural justice judgments during police-citizen encounters. This technique allows the researcher to manipulate police process during citizen encounters via hypothetical scenarios. Experimental stimuli are used as independent variables in the regression models. The results show that participants who were administered vignettes characterized by procedural injustice had lower levels of encounter satisfaction, decision acceptance, immediate compliance and greater expectations that police handle similar situations in the future differently relative to individuals who did not receive the negative stimulus. These effects are statistically significant across encounters involving traffic stops and noise complaints. As anticipated, the effect of procedural injustice often proved more salient regardless of whether participants were administered vignettes where they received a citation. Given the utility of the vignette design, future researchers are encouraged to apply the design to additional causal questions derived from the process-based model.
Using confirmatory factor analyses and multiple indicators per construct, we examined a number of theoretically derived factor structures pertaining to numerous trust-relevant constructs (from 9 to12) across four institutional contexts (police, local governance, natural resources, state governance) and multiple participant-types (college students via an online survey, community residents as part of a city’s budget engagement activity, a random sample of rural landowners, and a national sample of adult Americans via an Amazon Mechanical Turk study). Across studies, a number of common findings emerged. First, the best fitting models in each study maintained separate factors for each trust-relevant construct. Furthermore, post hoc analyses involving addition of higher-order factors tended to fit better than collapsing of factors. Second, dispositional trust was easily distinguishable from the other trust-related constructs, and positive and negative constructs were often distinguishable. However, the items reflecting positive trust attitude constructs or positive trustworthiness perceptions showed low discriminant validity. Differences in findings between studies raise questions warranting further investigation in future research, including differences in correlations among latent constructs varying from very high (e.g., 12 inter-factor correlations above .9 in Study 2) to more moderate (e.g., only 3 correlations above .8 in Study 4). Further, the results from one study (Study 4) suggested that legitimacy, fairness, and voice were especially highly correlated and may form a single higher-order factor, but the other studies did not. Future research is needed to determine when and why different higher-order factor structures may emerge in different institutional contexts or with different samples.
The purpose of this volume is to consider how trust research, particularly trust in institutions, might benefit from increased inter- or transdisciplinarity. In this introductory chapter, we first give some background on prior disciplinary, multidisciplinary, and interdisciplinary work relating to trust. Next, we describe how this many-disciplined volume on institutional trust emerged from the joint activities of the Nebraska Symposium on Motivation and a National Science Foundation-funded Workshop on institutional trust. This chapter describes some of the themes that emerged, while also providing an overview of the rest of the volume, which includes chapters that discuss conceptualizations, definitions, and measurement of trust; institutional trust across domains and contexts; and theoretical advances regarding the “dark” and “light” sides of institutional trust. Finally, we conclude with some thoughts about the future of and potential promises and pitfalls of trust as a focus of interdisciplinary study.