Law and Human Behavior最新文献

{"title":"Does meeting in person matter? Examining youths' perceived support on juvenile probation.","authors":"Kelsey E Tom,Savanna Allen,Allison R Cross,Adam D Fine","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000606","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000606","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEBeyond traditional in-person meetings, contemporary juvenile probation officers (JPOs) leverage modern technology to interact with youth via videoconferencing, phone calls, and text messaging. It is plausible that youth feel more-or less-supported by JPOs depending on the format of their interactions. Simultaneously, the procedural justice literature suggests that the quality of JPOs' interactions with youth may be as much or more influential on JPO-youth relationships than interaction format. Given that more positive supervisory relationships are associated with better probation outcomes, it is critical to understand what may shape youths' regard for JPOs. This study examined youths' perceived support from JPOs across four interaction formats. Then, this study examined how two supervisory experiences (interaction quality and frequency) were associated with youths' perceived support from JPOs through each interaction format.HYPOTHESESWe hypothesized that youth would feel similarly supported by JPOs across all four interaction formats. Per procedural justice theory, we expected that youth who perceived better quality relationships with their JPO (i.e., more procedurally just) would be more likely to feel supported by JPOs across all interaction formats. Last, we hypothesized that youth interacted with JPOs more often digitally, rather than in person, would be more likely to feel supported.METHODYouth (N = 529) on juvenile probation were surveyed to assess their probation experiences and perceptions of JPOs.RESULTSYouth felt similarly supported by JPOs across all four formats. Youth were more likely to feel supported the more often they interacted with JPOs and were much more likely to feel supported by JPOs they viewed as more procedurally just.CONCLUSIONSThis study suggests that digital interactions are prevalent in juvenile probation supervision and well received by youth. Results highlight the potential of two supervisory practices that may help JPOs build better relationships with youth on probation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143921019","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Statistical reporting practices within forensic psychology: Is anything changing?","authors":"Joseph Eastwood,Kirk Luther,Tianshuang Han,Valerie Arenzon,Quintan Crough,Ashley Curtis,Hannah de Almeida,Kelsey Janet Downer,Cassandre Dion Larivière,Jessica Lundy,Funmilola Ogunseye,Mark D Snow,Brent Snook","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000611","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000611","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEWe examined the evolution of statistical reporting practices within forensic psychology across two decades (2000-2020) to assess their adherence to recommended best practices.METHODWe conducted a comprehensive analysis of articles published in six prominent forensic psychology journals, including every empirical article published in each journal in 2000, 2005, 2010, 2015, and 2020 (N = 813). We then evaluated the use and interpretation of null hypothesis significance testing (NHST), effect sizes (ESs), confidence intervals (CIs), and Bayesian statistics for each article in the sample.RESULTSWe found a persistent reliance on NHST, with nearly all articles employing it for data analysis and interpretation. Encouragingly, the reporting of ESs and CIs has increased substantially; their interpretative use, however, remains limited. Bayesian methods were rarely used for analysis or interpretation of data.CONCLUSIONSThese findings suggest a slow uptake of reforms advocated by statistical guidelines, with forensic psychology researchers continuing to prioritize NHST over recommended approaches. Although the increase in ES and CI reporting is encouraging, the continued reliance on NHST means that both the scientific literature and important applied decision making in the forensic psychology field are impacted by the shortcomings of this statistical reporting approach (e.g., simplistic dichotomous decisions, lack of reproducibility, potential for p-hacking). We call for journals in the field to encourage further use of statistical best practices within their manuscripts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"47 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-05-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143914840","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Politics in policy: An experimental examination of public views regarding sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms.","authors":"Isabella Polito,Colleen M Berryessa","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000605","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000605","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVEThis research examined how the cost of incarceration to the state and type of offense affect public support for different levels of sentence reductions (10%, 25%, 50%) via policies called \"second chance\" mechanisms that reduce incarcerated populations as well as whether political ideology or affiliation predicts such support.HYPOTHESES(a) Across different levels of sentence reductions, participants were expected to show significantly decreased support for the use of second chance mechanisms for violent compared with nonviolent crimes (b) but also to show significantly increased support when exposed to cost information to the state, compared with not receiving that information. (c) Political ideology and affiliation were expected to moderate support across different levels of sentence reductions.METHODA 6 (offense type) × 2 (cost of incarceration to the state) experiment with a national sample of the U.S. public (N = 419) was used to assess support for using second chance mechanisms to achieve different levels of sentence reductions. Moderation analyses assessed how participants' political ideology and affiliation impacted support.RESULTSParticipants did not show significantly less support for the use of second chance mechanisms to achieve sentence reductions for violent compared with nonviolent crimes. Providing cost information did not significantly impact support for any level of sentence reduction. Across sentence reductions, political ideology significantly moderated support for the use of second chance mechanisms; being more conservative predicted decreased support for a 10% sentence reduction when cost information was also provided.CONCLUSIONSCrime type and political ideology, but not fiscal costs, appear in some way to bear on public support for sentence reductions via second chance mechanisms. Overall, evidence suggests that public support for the use of second chance mechanisms presents an opportunity to advance reforms that reduce incarcerated populations and enhance the public's perceptions of the justice system's legitimacy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"37 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143872031","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Public opinion about judicial roles and considerations: A latent profile analysis.","authors":"Sarah L Desmarais,Samantha A Zottola,John Monahan","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000607","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000607","url":null,"abstract":"OBJECTIVETo inform policies and practices that reflect the values and expectations of the communities that judges serve, we fielded a national survey of public perceptions regarding judicial roles and factors that could be considered in decision making.HYPOTHESESWe had four questions: (1) What is public opinion on the importance of various judicial roles and considerations? (2) Can distinct groups of respondents be identified on the basis of their views? (3) Do the groups differ in terms of their sociodemographic characteristics and beliefs? (4) If so, can they be distinguished by their characteristics and beliefs?METHODWe surveyed 4,861 jury-eligible adults through Qualtrics Online Panels. About half identified as men, and about two thirds as White; the mean age was 45 years. Respondents rated the importance of judicial responsibilities and considerations using 10 items adapted from a survey of trial court judges. We employed latent profile analysis to identify subgroups on the basis of their ratings and conducted univariate and multivariable analyses to examine differences across sociodemographic characteristics.RESULTSA four-group model was the best-fitting and most interpretable solution. The largest profile (47.4%) demonstrated the highest ratings, suggesting that they valued due process, legal standards, expert knowledge, public safety, helping the accused, and community input. The second largest profile (39.5%) also valued legal standards, expert knowledge, and public safety but not public interests and community input. The next group (7.8%) generally rated all items as neither important nor unimportant, suggesting an ambivalence, lack of opinion, or limited interest in the issues. The smallest group (5.4%) rated all items as unimportant.CONCLUSIONSFindings highlight areas of consensus and divergence and reveal distinct opinion profiles that can inform policy and practice. They also support the use of sophisticated measurement and analytic approaches that go beyond descriptive examinations of a single item or index to assess public opinion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":"7 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.5,"publicationDate":"2025-04-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143836551","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Behavioral detection of emotional, high-stakes deception: Replication in a registered report.","authors":"Leanne Ten Brinke, Samantha Sprigings, Cameo Brown, Chloe Kam, Hugues Delmas","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000596","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000596","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We replicated research by ten Brinke and Porter (2012), who reported that a combination of four behavioral cues (word count, tentative words, upper face surprise, lower face happiness) could accurately discriminate deceptive murderers from genuinely distressed individuals, pleading for the return of a missing relative.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized that each of the four behavioral cues identified in the original study would be similarly related (i.e., size, direction, significance) to veracity in a novel set of pleaders. With these cues as predictors, we also hypothesized that logistic regression models-separately testing the original and replication samples-would produce similar accuracy rates exceeding chance in discriminating genuine from deceptive pleaders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We gathered a new sample of public appeals, including 82 genuine and 14 deceptive pleaders. After establishing ground truth, we transcribed video-recorded pleas and coded them for the presence of upper face surprise and lower face happiness. We used Linguistic Inquiry and Word Count to determine word count and the proportion of tentative words in each appeal.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found support for several hypotheses. Tentative words were used significantly more by deceptive (vs. genuine) pleaders in both the original and replication samples. Deceptive pleaders used significantly fewer words in both samples, although this relationship was significant only in the original sample. Liars in both samples smiled more than truth-tellers, although this relationship was statistically significant only in the replication sample. However, predictive accuracy was poor and did not differ from chance in the replication sample.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings do not provide a tidy picture of the reliability of behavioral cues to deception. Although some behavioral cues did replicate across samples, others did not. More research will be necessary to understand the factors that produce variable findings across samples, despite using the same methods of investigation. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"173-181"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143732418","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"The psychological allure of Alford: Does wanting to appear innocent put innocents at risk?","authors":"Johanna Hellgren, Annmarie Khairalla, Miko M Wilford, Rachele J DiFava, Saul M Kassin","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000599","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000599","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The Alford plea allows defendants to maintain innocence while pleading guilty, but this option is largely unknown to the public, and its effects are unknown to researchers and practitioners. Some legal scholars have argued that the Alford plea may attract innocent defendants who may not otherwise accept a plea, whereas others have asserted that it offers a beneficial alternative for those wanting to preserve their reputations and avoid the more severe consequences of a trial conviction. Applying a social psychological lens, we examined how the Alford plea influences innocent and guilty mock defendants' plea decision making.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted that whereas guilty mock defendants would be more likely to accept a plea overall, the Alford variant would increase the rate at which innocent mock defendants accept pleas.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We conducted two studies: In Study 1, 406 Prolific Academic participants read a vignette in which they were either innocent or guilty of involuntary manslaughter; in Study 2, we used an interactive simulation of legal procedures in which 367 innocent Testable Minds participants were accused of larceny. In both studies, participants were offered either a traditional plea requiring them to admit guilt or an Alford plea allowing them to maintain innocence.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>As predicted, we found that guilty participants were more likely to accept a plea overall in Study 1 (<i>OR</i> = 10.16, 95% CI [6.38, 16.19]), but we did not observe an effect of Alford. In Study 2, innocent participants who rejected an initial plea were more likely to accept a second plea (<i>OR</i> = 3.61, 95% CI [1.28, 10.20]) if it was an Alford (and allowed them to maintain innocence). Additionally, many participants in both studies cited self-presentation-related reasons for their plea decisions.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Our findings suggest that the Alford plea may increase the risk of false guilty pleas, a finding that has important implications for criminal defendants and the attorneys who advise them. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"121-139"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143755111","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Experiencing and subsequently reporting sexual victimization among U.S. college students with disabilities.","authors":"Lane Kirkland Gillespie, Brittany E Hayes, Tara N Richards","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000597","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000597","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>We examined whether U.S. college students across multiple disability types were at an increased risk for sexual victimization (compared with students without disability) and whether disability type or registration with the accessibility office was associated with odds of reporting sexual victimization experiences to any campus-designated program/resource.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We predicted (a) students with disabilities will have higher odds of sexual victimization than students without disabilities, (b) student survivors with disabilities will have higher odds of reporting than student survivors without disabilities, and (c) student survivors with disabilities who are registered with the accessibility office will have higher odds of reporting than student survivors with disabilities who are not registered.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study used the 2019 Association of American Universities campus climate survey data (<i>N</i> = 163,190) to examine experiences with and reporting of sexual victimization through a series of mixed-effects logistic regression models. We expected that students with disabilities would be more likely to experience and report sexual victimization and that registration with accessibility services would further increase reporting.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Students across disability types were more likely than students without disabilities to experience sexual victimization. Among student survivors, students with disabilities were more likely to report their victimization to at least one program/resource than students without disabilities. Student survivors who were registered with the campus accessibility office had a higher likelihood of reporting to each program/resource examined.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Findings reinforce the importance of collaboration across programs/resources to ensure care to student survivors irrespective of students' points of contact. Given that student survivors with disabilities are reporting, institutions should unpack \"what's working\" and tailor strategies to encourage reporting among student survivors who are less likely to report. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"140-150"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143694172","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Comparing predictive validity of Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory scores in Indigenous and non-Indigenous Canadian youth.","authors":"Michele Peterson-Badali","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000578","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000578","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>There is an increasing recognition of the necessity to establish the predictive validity of risk assessment scores within specific population subgroups, particularly those (including Indigenous peoples) who are overrepresented in the criminal justice system. I compared measures of discrimination and calibration of the Youth Level of Service/Case Management Inventory (YLS/CMI) in Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth probationers in Ontario, Canada.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>Compared with non-Indigenous youth, Indigenous youth would have higher risk scores and reoffense rates. The YLS/CMI would predict reoffending and time to reoffense significantly and comparably for Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth, but there would be group difference discrimination (sensitivity, specificity) and calibration (positive predictive value, negative predictive value).</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>Justice ministry-supplied data on 400 Indigenous and non-Indigenous youth (330 male, 70 female) individually matched on key background variables were analyzed to provide measures of discrimination and calibration of the YLS/CMI, with 3-year recidivism as the primary outcome.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Indigenous youth were assessed at significantly higher risk than non-Indigenous youth (<i>d</i> = .60); 70% of Indigenous youth and 46% of non-Indigenous youth reoffended (ϕ = .24). Overall measures of discrimination (area under the curve) and calibration (logistic regression) were significant and did not differ across groups. Cross-area under the curve results indicated that the YLS/CMI discriminated Indigenous recidivists from non-Indigenous nonrecidivists but differentiated Indigenous nonrecidivists from non-Indigenous recidivists at chance level. In addition, recidivism was underestimated for low-risk Indigenous youth compared with non-Indigenous youth, but specificity was also low; only 28% of Indigenous youth who did not reoffend were assessed as low risk. Results were largely consistent across male and female youth.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Examining subgroup predictive validity using multiple indices provides important information that should inform policy and practice discussions regarding fair use of risk assessment tools. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"151-162"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142607024","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Automated question type coding of forensic interviews and trial testimony in child sexual abuse cases.","authors":"Zsofia A Szojka, Suvimal Yashraj, Thomas D Lyon","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000590","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000590","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>Question-type classification is widely used as a measure of interview quality. However, question-type coding is a time-consuming process when performed by manual coders. Reliable automated question-type coding approaches would facilitate the assessment of the quality of forensic interviews and court testimony involving victims of child abuse.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We expected that the reliability achieved by the automated model would be comparable to manual coders.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>We examined whether a large language model (Robustly Optimized Bidirectional Encoder Representations from Transformers Approach) trained on questions (<i>N</i> = 351,920) asked in forensic interviews (<i>n</i> = 1,435) and trial testimony (<i>n</i> = 416) involving 3- to 17-year-old alleged victims of child sexual abuse could distinguish among (a) invitations, (b) wh-questions, (c) option-posing questions, and (d) nonquestions.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The model achieved high reliability (95% agreement; κ = .93). To determine whether disagreements were due to machine or manual errors, we recoded inconsistencies between the machine and manual codes. Manual coders erred more often than the machine, particularly by overlooking invitations and nonquestions. Correcting errors in the manual codes further increased the model's reliability (98% agreement; κ = .97).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Automated question-type coding can provide a time-efficient and highly accurate alternative to manual coding. We have made the trained model publicly available for use by researchers and practitioners. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"163-172"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11975488/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"143671500","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}

{"title":"Who questions the legitimacy of law? A latent profile analysis using national data in China.","authors":"Han Wang, Mengliang Dai","doi":"10.1037/lhb0000583","DOIUrl":"10.1037/lhb0000583","url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Objective: </strong>The present study aims to identify meaningful distinct subgroups of legal legitimacy, thereby addressing the need to move beyond a general legitimacy-based model.</p><p><strong>Hypotheses: </strong>We hypothesized (1) we would find distinct profiles for legal legitimacy, (2) perceived procedural justice would predict the identified profiles, and (3) profiles with low normative alignment or duty to obey scores would be associated with disadvantaged groups.</p><p><strong>Method: </strong>This study utilized a subset of survey items from the Chinese General Social Survey 2015 to measure legal legitimacy. Eight survey items, selected based on theoretical considerations, underwent a confirmatory factor analysis to assess their suitability for loading onto the two dimensions of legal legitimacy. A latent profile analysis was then performed on the scores obtained from the eight items to identify distinct profiles of legal legitimacy. Multinomial logistic regression models were estimated to examine the associations between the identified profiles, procedural justice, and sociodemographic characteristics. The analyses were conducted on a large sample of Chinese citizens (<i>N</i> = 3,475, 47.8% males; <i>M</i>_age = 50.3 years, <i>SD</i> = 16.8).</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We identified four distinct profiles of legal legitimacy, namely contented conformist, relatively satisfied conformist, ordinary conformist, and cynical conformist. In support of the construct validity of the profiles, we found that these profiles differed on key factors of procedural justice and multiple sociodemographic variables.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Our findings demonstrate population heterogeneity in legal legitimacy and underscore the importance of a multidimensional conceptualization. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved).</p>","PeriodicalId":48230,"journal":{"name":"Law and Human Behavior","volume":" ","pages":"108-120"},"PeriodicalIF":2.4,"publicationDate":"2025-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"142337148","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}