Dr Michael K. Bryden
In his book Why People Obey the Law (1990), the psychologist Tom Tyler sought to understand how the public evaluate police legitimacy and whether those evaluations affect people’s attitudes and behaviours. Tyler’s work has contributed to an explosion of police legitimacy scholarship, leading many policing agencies to adopt procedural justice training. Yet limited research had been done that examines the police’s beliefs about their own legitimacy. This blog provides an overview of police power-holder legitimacy and some findings from a mixed-methods study on police recruits.
Police legitimacy
Legitimacy can be understood as the moral right to possess and exercise power. At its most primitive, the study of legitimacy examines why ‘one lot of people’ ought to have power over ‘another lot of people’ (Williams, 2005, p. 5). As such, a power-holder, whether it be an organisation or an individual, is legitimate when they are ‘justified in claiming the right to hold power over other citizens’ (Bottoms and Tankebe, 2012, p. 124, italics in original). What we mean by ‘justified’ will depend on the social and political context.
While measurement and conceptualisation of legitimacy is debated (e.g. Bottoms and Tankebe 2020; Jackson and Bradford, 2019), the general argument is that the police’s use of procedural justice practices promotes legitimacy, which in turn encourages people to cooperate with the police (Bolger and Walters, 2019) and voluntarily obey the law (Walters and Bolger, 2019). This is contrasted with the traditional compliance model which assumes that would-be offenders are deterred if the perceived risks outweigh the perceived benefits.
But what of power-holders themselves?
Self-legitimacy and police recruits
Despite the large body of research on police legitimacy, the police’s perception about their own legitimacy has been ignored until recently. ‘Power-holder legitimacy’ or ‘self-legitimacy’, as Bottoms and Tankebe (2013) term it, explores how police officers develop moral beliefs about their own authority. The authors describe the relationship between power-holder legitimacy and audience legitimacy as ‘dialogic’ in nature. In the context of policing, the police make claims to possess legitimate authority which are accepted or rejected by the public. In turn, this might influence the way the police view their own authority and their interactions with the public. Self-legitimacy theory argues that power-holders have a desire and a need to believe that the power they wield is legitimate, that their position of authority is justified.
A key question for stakeholders is whether self-legitimacy influences attitudes and behaviours. For example, does self-legitimacy influence police misconduct or officers’ support for suspect rights? Existing research suggests that higher self-legitimacy is associated with support for procedural justice policing, willingness to engage with the public, a belief that force should be used as a last resort, and lower cynicism (for example, see Bradford and Quinton, 2014; McCarthy et al., 2021; Tankebe, 2019; Wolfe and Nix, 2016). However, research during COVID-19 found that higher levels of self-legitimacy were associated with an increased support for the use of force (Kyprianides et al., 2022). This research, however, tends to be cross-sectional and quantitative in nature. This means we do not know whether there is a causal relationship between self-legitimacy and behaviour.
Methods
My doctoral research explores how police student officers (i.e., recruits) at Greater Manchester Police develop self-legitimacy. The mixed-methods design was inspired by William Ker Muir’s 1977 classic work, Streetcorner Politicians. This cohort study (n = 97) consists of surveys and interviews at two time periods: Wave 1 took place during the student officer’s first few weeks at the Sedgley Park Training Centre before their contact with the public. It consisted of 60 surveys and 26 interviews. Wave 2 took place after their tutor patrol phase, during which they first encounter the public. It comprised 33 surveys and 9 interview.
The aim was to explore the development of the participants’ identities and perspectives from their initial training to their experience of frontline policing. These methods form part of a larger project that included interviews with serving police officers (e.g., trainers), ethnographic work living at Sedgley Park, and observations in police custody cells. This research was supervised by Justice Tankebe.
The emergent themes are organic; that is, I did not, for example, ask whether the participants support policing by consent. Rather, they raised the subject themselves. In other words, the themes should not be considered a reflection of overall support.
Findings
Three key interview findings are discussed here. First, in Wave 1, the student officers justified their authority with reference to their capacity to maintain social order, protect the public, and safeguard the vulnerable. In other words, they drew self-legitimacy from the belief that they are protectors, law upholders, and safeguarders. As Student Officer 17 explained, they were to become the ‘custodian[s]’ of the ‘ideal values of society’ (Wave 1 Interview). This is at odds with previous literature which suggests that police see themselves primarily as ‘crime fighters’ or ‘warriors’ (e.g., Loftus, 2010).
In my study, officers argued that their authority should be constrained (73%) (Wave 1 Interviews, n = 26). This included constraint by the law (35%), by accountability mechanisms (38%), and by the public’s consent (35%). The emphasis on constraint is arguably at odds with the crime fighter mentality where restrictions can be viewed as a barrier to fulfilling one’s perceived duties. After the tutor patrol phase and their first contact with the public (Wave 2), the participants were asked similar questions. They spoke about maintaining order, safeguarding people (e.g., children), and supporting inadequate social services. The officers maintained their belief the police are valuable but felt their role would be more legitimate if they could effectively handle mental health incidents and spend more time on crime.
Second, self-legitimacy theory explores the notion of ‘possible selves’(Markus and Nurius, 1986).This includes the ideal self, the aspirational identity, and the feared self, the identity to be avoided. Based on the data, the student officers had twin concerns: they wanted to develop into police constables that were ethical and effective. For them, an ethical power-holder meant being someone who is approachable, fair, trustworthy, and empathetic. Being effective meant being competent, solving crime, and helping people.
In contrast, their feared self was dominated by the idea of becoming a corrupt officer (i.e., unethical or criminal) rather than the fear of being ineffective. This included ideas like losing one’s humanity, becoming jaded, and misusing power. This finding underscores the significance that the student officers place on the moral dimension of policing. In Wave 2, after their contact with the public, the students were asked to describe what type of police officer they had become. I refer to this as the ‘realised self’. They predominantly described themselves in ethical terms, rather than referencing their effectiveness. For example, one explained: ‘I’d like to think I’m very fair and impartial’ (Interview B, Wave 2).
Finally, the recruits were asked about the use of force and the causes of crime. Muir (1977) argued that successful police officers need to be able to (1) incorporate the use of force into their moral worldview and (2) develop what he calls a ‘tragic perspective’. A tragic worldview recognises that people commit crime, in part, due to the unfortunate life circumstances that they find themselves in. This is contrasted with the ‘cynic perspective’, where humanity is viewed in a dualistic manner (e.g., good versus evil) and sees crime as predominantly the result of nature, rational choice, and immorality – the nature versus nurture debate.
According to Muir’s analysis, there are four types of officers: the enforcer (cynic/force justified), the reciprocator (tragic/force unjustified), the avoider (cynic/force unjustified), and the professional (tragic/force justified). Without a tragic perspective, Muir suggests police can become ‘enforcers’ (i.e., brutal). Police who are unable to incorporate force into their moral outlook can become ‘avoiders’, who withdraw from their role, or ‘reciprocators’, who adopt bargaining techniques. The ‘professional’ develops a balanced perspective. Consequently, a failure to develop moral confidence (reciprocator/avoider) or having excessive confidence (enforcer) can result in problematic policing (Bottoms and Tankebe, 2013).
In their responses, the student officers appeared to be incorporating the use of force into their moral worldview. They justified its use by arguing that force is used as a last resort to protect themselves and others. Likewise, they appeared to be developing a tragic perspective. Many viewed crime as largely the outcome of a person’s circumstances, including their upbringing, needs, and environment (e.g., stealing to feed a child) (65%) (Wave 1, n = 26). This was accompanied by the desire to help people desist from crime, rather than punish them. As Student Officer 20 responded: ‘‘[I hope] that I’m able to help someone that’s fallen into a clear trajectory of crime’ (Wave 1).
Implications
Beyond scholarly contributions, the practical implications from these findings are worth discussing – they relate to morality and performance. First, the developing power-holders wish to become ethical police officers. They wish to become effective in their duties, promoting social order and protecting people from harm, but they judge their performance in ethical terms, focusing on their fairness for example. This suggests recruits already emphasise the moral dimension of policing. This gives police organisations an opportunity to teach officers about the origins of their legitimacy, the public’s perspectives on police legitimacy, and to train them to carry out their duties in a procedurally just manner. This could be coupled with education on evidence-based policing (Sherman, 2013).
As Sherman (1982) argued over 40 years ago, it is also important to help police officers to develop their ‘moral careers’. In developing officers’ self-legitimacy, police organisations may improve police performance. Officers with ‘optimal’ self-legitimacy may be better equipped to maintain their optimism, engage with the public, and use coercion as a last resort (Kyprianides et al., 2022).
Michael K. Bryden, PhD (Cantab), is a Chancellor’s Postdoctoral Indigenous Research Fellow at the University of Technology Sydney. Email: michael.bryden@uts.edu.au. X @MichaelKBryden. ORCID
BSC Policing Network 