School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Arizona State University.
School of Criminology and Criminal Justice, Arizona State University.
Law Hum Behav. 2023 Aug;47(4):510-525. doi: 10.1037/lhb0000536. Epub 2023 Jun 26.
Our goal in the present study was to use longitudinal data to assess how normative (i.e., consensually motivated) and instrumental (i.e., coercively motivated) obligation to obey police changed after police murdered George Floyd and whether these changes differed by political ideology.
Using procedural justice theory, we hypothesized that after Floyd's murder, participants would feel less normatively obligated and more instrumentally obligated to obey police. We also hypothesized that these trends would be stronger for liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning participants.
Adults ( = 645) were recruited through Prolific from four politically diverse U.S. states. Participants reported their normative and instrumental obligation across three waves of data collection, each separated by 3 weeks. The first two waves were collected prior to the Floyd's murder, and the third was collected after.
Hierarchical linear models indicated that although normative obligation remained stable before Floyd's murder, it declined after Floyd's murder ( = -0.19, 95% CI [-0.24, -0.14], < .001). In contrast, coercive obligation to obey increased consistently across all three waves. Liberal-leaning participants drove most of the effects.
For researchers, these findings help strengthen our understanding of procedural justice theory by differentiating normative and instrumental obligation and by distinguishing differences by political ideology within the context of a historic police-brutality event. For policymakers and law enforcement, our research suggests that police brutality may undermine the public's normative felt obligation to obey the police, which would be problematic for police reformation efforts grounded in governing by mutual consent versus by fear and coercion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).
本研究的目的是使用纵向数据评估在弗洛伊德被警察谋杀后，规范（即共识驱动）和工具（即强制驱动）服从警察的义务如何发生变化，以及这些变化是否因政治意识形态而异。
使用程序正义理论，我们假设在弗洛伊德谋杀案发生后，参与者会感到规范义务减少，而工具义务增加。我们还假设，这些趋势在自由倾向的参与者中比保守倾向的参与者更强。
通过 Prolific 从四个政治多元化的美国州招募成年人（n = 645）。参与者在三次数据收集之间的 3 周内报告了他们的规范和工具义务。前两次是在弗洛伊德谋杀案之前收集的，第三次是在之后收集的。
分层线性模型表明，尽管在弗洛伊德谋杀案之前规范义务保持稳定，但在弗洛伊德谋杀案之后下降（= -0.19，95%CI [-0.24，-0.14]，<0.001）。相比之下，服从警察的强制义务在所有三个波次中都持续增加。自由倾向的参与者驱动了大部分影响。
对于研究人员来说，这些发现通过区分规范和工具义务以及在历史性警察暴力事件的背景下区分政治意识形态内的差异，有助于加强我们对程序正义理论的理解。对于政策制定者和执法人员，我们的研究表明，警察暴力可能会破坏公众对遵守警察的规范感觉义务，这对基于相互同意而不是基于恐惧和强制的警察改革努力来说是有问题的。（PsycInfo 数据库记录（c）2023 APA，保留所有权利）。
