Does Procedural Justice Matter in the Private Security Sector?: Comparing Public Perceptions of the Private Security and Public Policing Sector

Abstract

The private security industry is expanding rapidly. One explanation for this rapid growth has been the rise of ‘risk thinking’ (Beck, 1992; Button, 2002). Governments, organisations and individuals have become increasingly preoccupied with the idea of risk management and the management of crime. As a result of this rapid expansion, private security officers now find themselves dealing with an ever-increasing diversification of roles, tasks and responsibilities. These new functions are increasingly overlapping with duties and roles traditionally fulfilled by public police officers. Empirical research suggests that the private security sector suffers from a legitimacy deficit (Nalla & Heraux, 2003; Rigakos, Davis, Ortiz, Blunt, & Broz, 2009; Van Steden & Nalla, 2010). Negative perceptions about the legitimacy of private security officers by members of the public hinder the effective and timely fulfilment of their duties. These negative perceptions can manifest through an unwillingness to cooperate with security generally. This is problematic because private security actors and the sector more generally, relies on citizens to be satisfied with their services and to be willing to report criminal incidents. This raises a pressing question of how the private security sector can best enhance their legitimacy in the eyes of the public. This thesis adopts a procedural justice framework, arguing that procedural justice is crucial to the establishment of the legitimacy of the private security sector. In the current thesis, procedural justice reflects the perceived quality of interpersonal treatment from authorities toward those they govern, and the perceived quality of their decision-making. To be procedurally just means that authorities need to adhere to four key principles: (1) treat people with ‘respect’ and dignity, (2) convey ‘trustworthy’ motives, (3) be ‘neutral’ in their dealings with different people, and (4) allow citizens an opportunity to ‘voice’ concerns before making a decision (Goodman-Delahunty, 2010; Tyler, 2006b). The procedural justice framework and its positive effect on the legitimacy of authorities has been well documented in the public police context. Research in public policing consistently reveals that when the public views police officers as enacting their authority in a procedurally just manner, this has positive impacts on their perceptions of the legitimacy of police officers and in turn their willingness to report crime and victimisation to police. The effects of procedural justice perceptions in the private security context have not yet been well explored. This thesis rectifies this gap in the literature. The main aim of this dissertation is to examine the attitudes and perceptions of Australian citizens as they relate to their interactions with private security officers. Specifically, this dissertation will examine whether perceptions of procedural justice held by citizens toward private security actors’ function to improve perceptions of private security officers (i.e., enhance their legitimacy), and function to promote citizens’ willingness to cooperate with private security officers. Of interest is whether these relationships play out in the same way as they do in the public policing context. As such, public attitudes toward public police officers will also be explored in the current dissertation, to enable direct comparison between the two policing contexts. This research explores and compares data gathered measuring public perceptions of private security officers (Study 1) with data measuring perceptions of public police officers (Study 2) in Australia. In Study 1, 374 members of the Australian public completed a survey regarding their views of the private security sector and of private security officers specifically. In Study 2, existing survey data collected from 2088 Australians was used. The public policing survey measured public perceptions of public police officers. Both surveys enable comparisons to be performed between perceptions of private security officers (Study 1) and perceptions of public police officers (Study 2). Analyses of the two surveys revealed broadly similar effects across the two policing contexts. However, respondents indicated that overall perceptions of public police officers were more favourable than perceptions of private security officers. While citizen perceptions were found to be more favourable towards public police, the relationships between the key variables of interest (i.e., procedural justice, legitimacy and willingness to cooperate with the authority) revealed broadly similar patterns. In both policing contexts, where respondents indicated favourable perceptions of procedural justice, they were more likely to perceive the authority as legitimate, and to report they would cooperate with them. The findings of this dissertation support much of the work in procedural justice scholarship highlighting the key role of perceptions of procedural justice and legitimacy in engendering citizens’ self-reported willingness to cooperate with authorities. The current thesis also explored the association between perceptions of each of the four principles of procedural justice (i.e., respect, trustworthiness, neutrality and voice) on perceptions of the legitimacy of both private security and public police officers, and their willingness to cooperate with those authorities. Specifically, it was perceptions of trustworthiness and neutrality were found to be significantly associated with perceptions of legitimacy towards both private security officers and public police. However, self-reported willingness to cooperate was significantly associated with perceptions of voice in the private security context – and both voice and respect were found to be significantly associated with self-reported willingness to cooperate in the public policing context. The present research represents one of only a handful of recent studies to explore the effects of procedural justice in the context of private security. It is the first to undertake direct comparisons between the private security and public policing contexts. The findings of the dissertation ultimately suggest a number of implications for both procedural justice and private security research. Firstly, these findings suggest the potential for further application of procedural justice across regulatory contexts, and in particular with private security officers. Secondly, the findings suggest there is some value in separating the individual elements of procedural justice (trustworthiness, respectful treatment, neutrality and voice) and exploring their association with perceptions of legitimacy and willingness to cooperate with authorities in future research. Thirdly, the findings suggest that procedural justice approaches may prove a worthwhile to the private security sector as a way of addressing the legitimacy deficit facing the sector. If private security officers wish to enhance the public’s perceptions of the legitimacy of the private security sector and its officers and if they wish to enhance the public’s self-reported willingness to cooperate with private security officers, adopting the principles of procedural justice may be one way this can be achieved.