衡量青少年对警察的看法:来自十字路口研究的证据。

IF 2.3 3区 社会学 Q2 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Adam D. Fine, Jordan Beardslee, Ryan D. Mays, P. Frick, L. Steinberg, E. Cauffman
{"title":"衡量青少年对警察的看法:来自十字路口研究的证据。","authors":"Adam D. Fine, Jordan Beardslee, Ryan D. Mays, P. Frick, L. Steinberg, E. Cauffman","doi":"10.1037/law0000328","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The literature on perceptions of police is growing, yet the enthusiasm is outpacing methodological rigor. This study (a) examined the factor structure of items assessing procedural justice and legitimacy, (b) tested whether the factors were uniquely associated with youth self-reported offending (SRO), and (c) identi fi ed whether effects on subsequent SRO operated through legitimacy. Using data derived from the 1,216 youth in the Crossroads Study, as well as supplemental models with Pathways to Desistance data, factor analyses established a factor structure, negative binomial regressions examined associations with SRO, and indirect effects analysis within a structural equation model framework identi fi ed whether associations on SRO operated through legitimacy. A fi ve-factor solution emerged: Voice, Neutrality/ Impartiality, Distributive Justice/Bias, Respect, and Legitimacy. In the adjusted model, only Distributive Justice/Bias and Legitimacy were directly associated with concurrent SRO. However, all procedural justice scales had indirect effects on subsequent offending through legitimacy. Implications for methodology and procedural justice theory are discussed.","PeriodicalId":51463,"journal":{"name":"Psychology Public Policy and Law","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.3000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"5","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Measuring youths’ perceptions of police: Evidence from the crossroads study.\",\"authors\":\"Adam D. Fine, Jordan Beardslee, Ryan D. Mays, P. Frick, L. Steinberg, E. Cauffman\",\"doi\":\"10.1037/law0000328\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The literature on perceptions of police is growing, yet the enthusiasm is outpacing methodological rigor. This study (a) examined the factor structure of items assessing procedural justice and legitimacy, (b) tested whether the factors were uniquely associated with youth self-reported offending (SRO), and (c) identi fi ed whether effects on subsequent SRO operated through legitimacy. Using data derived from the 1,216 youth in the Crossroads Study, as well as supplemental models with Pathways to Desistance data, factor analyses established a factor structure, negative binomial regressions examined associations with SRO, and indirect effects analysis within a structural equation model framework identi fi ed whether associations on SRO operated through legitimacy. A fi ve-factor solution emerged: Voice, Neutrality/ Impartiality, Distributive Justice/Bias, Respect, and Legitimacy. In the adjusted model, only Distributive Justice/Bias and Legitimacy were directly associated with concurrent SRO. However, all procedural justice scales had indirect effects on subsequent offending through legitimacy. Implications for methodology and procedural justice theory are discussed.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51463,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Psychology Public Policy and Law\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"5\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Psychology Public Policy and Law\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000328\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychology Public Policy and Law","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000328","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

摘要

关于警察观念的文献越来越多,然而热情超过了方法的严谨性。本研究(a)检视评估程序正义与正当性项目的因素结构,(b)检验这些因素是否与青少年自述犯罪(SRO)有独特的关联,以及(c)确定对后续SRO的影响是否透过正当性起作用。利用来自“十字路口研究”中1216名青少年的数据,以及“阻力路径”数据的补充模型,因子分析建立了一个因子结构,负二项回归检验了与SRO的关联,并在结构方程模型框架内进行间接效应分析,确定了SRO的关联是否通过合法性来运作。一个五要素解决方案出现了:声音、中立/公正、分配正义/偏见、尊重和合法性。在调整后的模型中,只有分配公正/偏见和合法性与并发SRO直接相关。然而,所有程序正义量表都通过合法性对后续犯罪产生间接影响。对方法论和程序正义理论的启示进行了讨论。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Measuring youths’ perceptions of police: Evidence from the crossroads study.
The literature on perceptions of police is growing, yet the enthusiasm is outpacing methodological rigor. This study (a) examined the factor structure of items assessing procedural justice and legitimacy, (b) tested whether the factors were uniquely associated with youth self-reported offending (SRO), and (c) identi fi ed whether effects on subsequent SRO operated through legitimacy. Using data derived from the 1,216 youth in the Crossroads Study, as well as supplemental models with Pathways to Desistance data, factor analyses established a factor structure, negative binomial regressions examined associations with SRO, and indirect effects analysis within a structural equation model framework identi fi ed whether associations on SRO operated through legitimacy. A fi ve-factor solution emerged: Voice, Neutrality/ Impartiality, Distributive Justice/Bias, Respect, and Legitimacy. In the adjusted model, only Distributive Justice/Bias and Legitimacy were directly associated with concurrent SRO. However, all procedural justice scales had indirect effects on subsequent offending through legitimacy. Implications for methodology and procedural justice theory are discussed.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
3.80
自引率
5.00%
发文量
55
期刊介绍: Psychology, Public Policy, and Law ® provides a forum in which to critically evaluate the contributions of psychology and related disciplines (hereinafter psychology) to public policy and legal issues, and vice versa. It is read by legal scholars and professionals and public policy analysts as well as psychology researchers and practitioners working at the interface of the three fields. The journal publishes theoretical and empirical articles that critically evaluate the contributions and potential contributions of psychology to public policy and legal issues;assess the desirability of different public policy and legal alternatives in light of the scientific knowledge base in psychology;articulate research needs that address public policy and legal issues for which there is currently insufficient theoretical and empirical knowledge;present empirical work that makes a significant contribution to the application of psychological knowledge to public policy or the law; andexamine public policy and legal issues relating to the conduct of psychology and related disciplines (e.g., human subjects, protection policies; informed consent procedures).
×
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