Victims' satisfaction with police communication strategies in discontinued cases: Unveiling the limits through a randomised controlled trial in Israel

IF 3.3 1区 社会学 Q1 CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY
Esther Buchnik , Barak Ariel , Eran Itskovich
{"title":"Victims' satisfaction with police communication strategies in discontinued cases: Unveiling the limits through a randomised controlled trial in Israel","authors":"Esther Buchnik ,&nbsp;Barak Ariel ,&nbsp;Eran Itskovich","doi":"10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2024.102194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><h3>Objectives</h3><p>This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of police reassurance callbacks to victims who reported crimes online, focusing on their rating of satisfaction with their reporting experience, perceived legitimacy, procedural justice, trust, and police performance. It also seeks to explore whether variations in the communication strategies used by the police – i.e., sending letters, a call from the investigator, or the reassurance callback – affect the participants' scores differently.</p></div><div><h3>Methods</h3><p>A posttest-only control group design, with victims who reported crimes online in the Southern District of Israel but whose cases were closed by the police. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a callback from the police based on the tenets of procedural justice (treatment group) or not (control group). Telephone interviews inquired about satisfaction, trust, security, and procedural justice. <em>t</em> and χ<sup>2</sup> statistics were then applied to measure the differences between the treatment and control conditions. Analyses of variance and Tukey's honestly significance difference test were used to estimate how different communication strategies affect victims' perceptions.</p></div><div><h3>Results</h3><p>No statistically significant differences in victims' ratings of satisfaction, procedural justice, trust in police, overall opinion of the police, or sense of security were observed between the treatment and control groups. However, based on the ad hoc analyses, compared to no contact at all following victims' initial reporting to the police, we show that (a) receiving only a letter from the police did not improve victims' satisfaction or overall rating of the police, whereas (b) a phone call from an investigator did lead to significant improvement in victim satisfaction and perceptions of procedural justice; however, (c) an additional procedural justice callback did not further enhance the investigator's phone call. Trust and security scores were not elevated under any of these conditions.</p></div><div><h3>Conclusions</h3><p>When added to an initial callback from the police, consequent to online crime reporting, a second call based on the tenets of procedural justice does not significantly improve victims' satisfaction or perceptions of procedural justice beyond the first contact, and a letter-only communication does not improve victims' perceptions.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48272,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Criminal Justice","volume":"92 ","pages":"Article 102194"},"PeriodicalIF":3.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235224000436/pdfft?md5=a89f3628c6a5daa72d65b6c99cc7607a&pid=1-s2.0-S0047235224000436-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Criminal Justice","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047235224000436","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objectives

This study aimed to assess the effectiveness of police reassurance callbacks to victims who reported crimes online, focusing on their rating of satisfaction with their reporting experience, perceived legitimacy, procedural justice, trust, and police performance. It also seeks to explore whether variations in the communication strategies used by the police – i.e., sending letters, a call from the investigator, or the reassurance callback – affect the participants' scores differently.

Methods

A posttest-only control group design, with victims who reported crimes online in the Southern District of Israel but whose cases were closed by the police. Participants were randomly assigned to receive a callback from the police based on the tenets of procedural justice (treatment group) or not (control group). Telephone interviews inquired about satisfaction, trust, security, and procedural justice. t and χ2 statistics were then applied to measure the differences between the treatment and control conditions. Analyses of variance and Tukey's honestly significance difference test were used to estimate how different communication strategies affect victims' perceptions.

Results

No statistically significant differences in victims' ratings of satisfaction, procedural justice, trust in police, overall opinion of the police, or sense of security were observed between the treatment and control groups. However, based on the ad hoc analyses, compared to no contact at all following victims' initial reporting to the police, we show that (a) receiving only a letter from the police did not improve victims' satisfaction or overall rating of the police, whereas (b) a phone call from an investigator did lead to significant improvement in victim satisfaction and perceptions of procedural justice; however, (c) an additional procedural justice callback did not further enhance the investigator's phone call. Trust and security scores were not elevated under any of these conditions.

Conclusions

When added to an initial callback from the police, consequent to online crime reporting, a second call based on the tenets of procedural justice does not significantly improve victims' satisfaction or perceptions of procedural justice beyond the first contact, and a letter-only communication does not improve victims' perceptions.

受害者对警方在非连续性案件中的沟通策略的满意度:通过在以色列进行随机对照试验揭示局限性
本研究旨在评估警方向网上报案的受害者回电安抚的有效性,重点关注受害者对其报案经历的满意度、感知的合法性、程序正义、信任和警方表现的评分。本研究还试图探讨警方使用的沟通策略(即寄信、调查员电话或安抚回电)的不同是否会对参与者的评分产生不同影响。方法采用仅事后对照组设计,以以色列南区网上报案但警方已结案的受害者为研究对象。参与者被随机分配到接受或不接受警方基于程序正义原则的回电(处理组)(对照组)。然后采用 t 和 χ2 统计量来测量治疗组和对照组之间的差异。结果 没有观察到治疗组和对照组的受害者在满意度、程序正义、对警察的信任、对警察的总体看法或安全感方面存在统计学意义上的显著差异。然而,根据特别分析,与受害者初次向警方报案后完全没有联系相比,我们发现:(a) 只收到警方的一封信并没有提高受害者的满意度或对警方的总体评价,而(b) 调查员的电话确实显著提高了受害者的满意度和对程序正义的看法;然而,(c) 额外的程序正义回访并没有进一步提高调查员电话的效果。结论在网上报案后,除了警方的首次电话回访外,根据程序正义原则进行的第二次电话回访并不能显著提高受害者的满意度或对首次联系后程序正义的感知,而仅通过信件沟通也不能提高受害者的感知。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Journal of Criminal Justice
Journal of Criminal Justice CRIMINOLOGY & PENOLOGY-
CiteScore
6.90
自引率
9.10%
发文量
93
审稿时长
23 days
期刊介绍: The Journal of Criminal Justice is an international journal intended to fill the present need for the dissemination of new information, ideas and methods, to both practitioners and academicians in the criminal justice area. The Journal is concerned with all aspects of the criminal justice system in terms of their relationships to each other. Although materials are presented relating to crime and the individual elements of the criminal justice system, the emphasis of the Journal is to tie together the functioning of these elements and to illustrate the effects of their interactions. Articles that reflect the application of new disciplines or analytical methodologies to the problems of criminal justice are of special interest. Since the purpose of the Journal is to provide a forum for the dissemination of new ideas, new information, and the application of new methods to the problems and functions of the criminal justice system, the Journal emphasizes innovation and creative thought of the highest quality.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信