Matching Items (5,844)
Filtering by

Clear all filters

153380-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Perceptions of legitimacy are an important antecedent of rule-abiding behavior. However, most research on the link between legitimacy and compliance has focused on legal authorities (i.e., police, courts, and corrections). To help fill this gap, the present study investigates the relationship between students' perceptions of the legitimacy of institutional authority

Perceptions of legitimacy are an important antecedent of rule-abiding behavior. However, most research on the link between legitimacy and compliance has focused on legal authorities (i.e., police, courts, and corrections). To help fill this gap, the present study investigates the relationship between students' perceptions of the legitimacy of institutional authority and compliance with a code of conduct in a university context. This study uses cross-sectional data from pencil-and-paper surveys administered to 517 individuals 18 years and older that were enrolled in 12 undergraduate classes at a large southwestern university. Results from the multivariate regression models show that procedural justice judgments are associated with perceived legitimacy. The evidence also supports the link between legitimacy and compliance in that the former is inversely related to students' behavioral intentions to cheat on an exam. However, legitimacy was not significantly associated with plagiarism. Overall, findings support the application of the process-based model of regulation to the university context in regards to academic misconduct. In addition to contributing to the process-based model literature, this study emphasizes the utility of the process-based model as a guide for the development of fair processes, in order to reduce the prevalence of student academic misconduct.
ContributorsBain, Stacy Nicole (Author) / Reisig, Michael D. (Thesis advisor) / Holtfreter, Kristy (Committee member) / Ready, Justin (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2015
156150-Thumbnail Image.png
Description
Prior research looking at procedural justice has largely focused on legal authorities, such as the police. There is a gap in the research regarding the influence of procedurally-just treatment of other criminal justice professionals, including 911 operators. These individuals are often the first contact citizens have when initiating police services,

Prior research looking at procedural justice has largely focused on legal authorities, such as the police. There is a gap in the research regarding the influence of procedurally-just treatment of other criminal justice professionals, including 911 operators. These individuals are often the first contact citizens have when initiating police services, and it is likely that 911 operators set the stage for how police encounters with the public unfold. Using a factorial vignette design, this study tests the causal links between procedural injustice and several outcome measures, including cooperation, satisfaction, callback likelihood, and willingness to testify in court. Data from a university-based sample (n=488) were used to estimate a series of ordinal regression models. The results show that participants who received the injustice stimuli were generally less likely to report they would call 911 in the future, cooperate with the 911 operator if asked additional questions, cooperate with the police once they arrived on the scene, and had lower levels of satisfaction with the how the operator handled the call. These results were significant across two different scenarios (i.e., breaking and entering and traffic accident). Seriousness of the encounter also varied across these outcomes, but the magnitude of the effect was more modest. The results demonstrate the effect non-sworn personnel, such as 911 operators, can have on the outcome of police-citizen encounters.
ContributorsFlippin, Michaela R (Author) / Reisig, Michael D. (Thesis advisor) / Young, Jacob T.N. (Committee member) / Trinkner, Rick (Committee member) / Arizona State University (Publisher)
Created2018