Fairness in policing: how does internal procedural justice translate to external procedural justice?

Abstract

A growing body of research has shown the experience of fair treatment within police organizations (internal procedural justice) leads to a greater willingness among police officers to treat members of the public fairly (external procedural justice). Despite recent scholarship in this area, the associations between internal and external procedural justice, and the intervening mechanisms at play, are still not well understood. Using survey data from new police officers in England and Wales, we test the direct association between internal and external procedural justice, and indirect connections through self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being. Self-efficacy, but not job satisfaction or well-being, was found to partially mediate the relationship between internal and external procedural justice. In other words, perceived internal procedural justice promoted external procedural justice through (in part) cultivating greater confidence in officers’ abilities to perform their job effectively.

INTRODUCTION

Fair treatment is fundamental to the principles of democratic policing (Bradford and Quinton 2014; Trinkner et al. 2016; Sun et al. 2018). A substantial body of research shows that when officers wield their day-to-day authority in ways that uphold common norms of respectful interpersonal treatment and fair and neutral decision-making, people are more likely to perceive the police as trustworthy and legitimate, are more likely to be satisfied with police contact, and are more willing to cooperate with police directives (Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler 2006; Tyler and Fagan 2008; Murphy 2009; Jackson et al. 2012). But how do police officers develop a commitment to implementing fair treatment with the public? A growing body of research has illustrated that when police officers feel they are treated fairly and respectfully by their organization (i.e. when they themselves experience procedural justice in their workplace), they are more likely to believe treating members of the public fairly is important (Van Craen and Skogan 2017; Wu et al. 2017). In other words, the experience of procedural justice internally (i.e. from within police organizations) leads to a greater willingness to use procedural justice externally (i.e. with the public). Despite recent scholarship in this area, the associations between internal and external procedural justice in policing, and the intervening mechanisms at play, are not well understood (Wang et al. 2024).

The current study contributes to this literature by examining the direct and indirect pathways from internal to external procedural justice in policing. Our study advances prior research in several ways. First, although previous policing studies have explored job satisfaction and well-being as mediators to explain the internal–external procedural justice relationship (Trinkner et al. 2016; Wu et al. 2017), research has not yet examined the role of self-efficacy. Some research has explored the mediating role of self-legitimacy (Bottoms and Tankebe 2012; Bradford and Quinton 2014; Chen et al. 2021), which relates to an officer’s belief in the rightfulness and acceptance of their authority and role (Gau and Paoline 2021). Self-efficacy, on the other hand, refers to the belief individuals have regarding their ability to perform necessary tasks to achieve goals (Bandura 1997). Unlike self-legitimacy, which is typically conferred by citizens, self-efficacy is a concept that is internally driven and one that officers may have direct control over. As will be discussed further below, there are reasons to suspect that self-efficacy will prove more important than job satisfaction or well-being in explaining the internal–external procedural justice relationship. In policing research, self-efficacy has been linked to career commitment in younger officers (Aremu 2005) and work experiences (Somers and Terrill 2022), and domain-specific self-efficacy has been linked to various outcomes, such as apprehensiveness to use force (Marier and Baker 2024) and police performance (Band and Manuele 1987). However, the role of self-efficacy in driving police officers’ commitment to procedural justice remains unclear.

Second, our sample is unique. We draw on a survey of new police officers in England and Wales who were recruited via a graduate recruitment and development programme called Police Now (see Fenn et al. 2020). Police Now is a registered charity that seeks to bring university graduates and career changers into policing with a stated mission ‘to transform communities, reduce crime and increase the public’s confidence in policing by recruiting and developing a diverse and outstanding group of individuals to be leaders in society and on the policing frontline’ (Police Now 2023). The latest police workforce figures from England and Wales show the number of police officers leaving the service is at an all-time high (Home Office 2023), and officers early in their careers make up the bulk of voluntary resignations (30 per cent and 71 per cent of voluntary resignations occur within the first and 5 years of service, respectively; National Police Chiefs’ Council 2023). Similar patterns occur in the USA (Young and Sayers 2022; Adams et al. 2023) and Australia (Coulter 2023). Given these retention challenges, understanding how new police officers experience procedural justice in their organizations, and the flow-on effects to variables such as job satisfaction, well-being, self-efficacy, and external procedural justice is valuable.

The paper proceeds as follows. First, we describe procedural justice theory and its application to policing. We then outline the theoretical mechanisms linking internal and external procedural justice—well-being, job satisfaction, and self-efficacy—before presenting our methods and results.

PROCEDURAL JUSTICE AND POLICING

Procedural justice theory is premised on the idea that people pay close attention to the fairness of the processes through which those with power interact with them (Tyler 2006). Within criminal justice research, procedural justice is ‘the perception that legal institutions, such as the police and courts, are fair and just during the process of law enforcement’ (Chan et al. 2023: 2–3). Both the style of social interaction (e.g. treating people with dignity and respect; conveying trustworthy motives), and being neutral and providing voice to citizens before decision-making are central to people’s experiences and judgements (Mazerolle et al. 2013; Bradford et al. 2023). Research across a wide range of policing contexts shows that procedural justice during police–citizen encounters is strongly linked to public trust and perceptions of police legitimacy (e.g. Hinds and Murphy 2007; Jackson et al. 2012; Mazerolle et al. 2013; Murphy et al. 2014), and that perceptions of trust and police legitimacy drive important behaviours, such as cooperation with police and compliance with the law (e.g. Sunshine and Tyler 2003; Tyler 2006; for reviews, see Bolger and Walters 2019; Walters and Bolger 2019).

A related line of research has shown that perceptions of procedural justice within the police organization are also important. Like any employee, police officers are sensitive to fairness issues and want to be treated fairly and equitably by their organization (Trinkner et al. 2016). Studies have shown that procedurally fair and respectful treatment experienced by police officers strengthens trust in their organization (Donner et al. 2015), increases organizational commitment and job satisfaction (Tankebe 2010), reduces job stress (Trinkner et al. 2016), enhances officers’ perceptions of their own self-legitimacy (Bradford and Quinton 2014; Gau and Paoline 2021), and increases compliance with organizational rules and policies (Bradford et al. 2014). Further, studies have shown that when officers receive procedural justice from their supervisors and organizations, they are more likely to hold views supportive of procedurally just policing (Van Craen and Skogan 2017; Wu et al. 2017). In other words, being treated fairly and respectfully strengthens officers’ commitment to treating members of the public in the same way.

MECHANISMS LINKING INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL PROCEDURAL JUSTICE

This notion of ‘fair policing from the inside out’ was first outlined by Van Craen (2016b): 290) who proposed a model linking internal procedural justice to external procedural justice directly (via supervisor modelling), as well as indirectly through three mechanisms: negative emotions, job satisfaction/morale, and trust in citizens. The idea being that when police are treated poorly by their supervisors, negative emotions and poor job satisfaction/morale result, and these factors decrease officers’ commitment to treat citizens fairly.

Several studies have tested these, and other, mechanisms in the internal–external procedural justice relationship. Some have found direct effects between internal and external procedural justice (Van Craen and Skogan 2017; Wu et al. 2017; Sun et al. 2019; Donner and Olson 2020), while others have found the relationship is largely indirect, mediated by variables such as job satisfaction, stress, self-legitimacy, trust in citizens, and organizational commitment (Trinkner et al. 2016; Jonathan-Zamir and Harpaz 2018; Sun et al. 2018; Kutnjak Ivković et al. 2020; Williams et al. 2022). In this study, we test two mechanisms proposed by Van Craen (2016a): negative emotions (operationalized in the current study as officer well-being) and job satisfaction. In addition to testing for direct effects between internal and external procedural justice, we also propose and test a third mediating mechanism: self-efficacy.

Officer well-being and job satisfaction

According to Van Craen (2016a) model, one way that internal procedural justice exerts an indirect influence on external procedural justice is through negative emotions. Drawing on General Strain Theory (Agnew 1992) and frustration–aggression theory (Dollard et al. 1939), Van Craen (2016a) posits that being treated unfairly by supervisors or police organizations creates strain in officers which leads to negative emotions, such as anger and frustration. To cope with these negative emotions, Van Craen (2016a) proposes that officers may redirect their frustration from their supervisors onto citizens.

Several studies have found a significant association between procedural justice (or injustice) and officers’ negative emotions, such as anger and frustration (Wu et al. 2017), officer distress (Trinkner et al. 2016), and occupational stress (Williams et al. 2022). Furthermore, two studies have found that these negative emotions mediate the relationship between internal and external procedural justice. Trinkner et al. (2016), for example, used a sample of police officers from a large urban police force and found that a procedurally fair organizational climate predicted lower levels of officer distress, which, in turn, was associated with more support for democratic policing (i.e. that officers will abide by the rule of law, are accountable, and act with procedural fairness). Similarly, among a sample of police officers from Taiwan, Wu et al. (2017) found a significant indirect relationship between internal and external procedural justice through lower levels of anger and frustration.

The second indirect pathway proposed by Van Craen (2016a) is through job satisfaction/morale. The idea here is that officers who experience low job satisfaction and morale will not be inclined to put effort into their work; for example, they may not take the time to listen to citizens or address their concerns (Van Craen 2016b). The link between internal procedural fairness and employee job satisfaction is well-established in the organizational fairness literature (Colquitt et al. 2001). In policing research, several studies show higher levels of job satisfaction among officers who perceive procedurally just treatment from their supervisors and organizations (Crow et al. 2012; Myhill and Bradford 2013; Wu et al. 2017; Wolfe et al. 2018), and job satisfaction has been shown to mediate the relationship between internal and external procedural justice (Wu et al. 2017).

Self-efficacy as a mediator

In addition to job satisfaction and well-being, our study includes a third potential mediator: officer self-efficacy. Self-efficacy was originally conceptualized by Bandura (1997) as an individual’s belief in their ability to succeed in specific situations or to accomplish a task. The construct reflects confidence in one’s capacity and competence to influence their own motivation, behaviour, and social environment, and can affect how much energy, time, and effort they are willing to put in to achieve a goal (Bandura 1997). Within the context of organizational behaviour, employees with high self-efficacy tend to believe they can perform well and are more inclined to take on difficult tasks; on the other hand, employees with low self-efficacy may doubt their abilities, and avoid challenging tasks (Gist and Mitchell 1992).

Among police officers, self-efficacy has been linked to higher task performance (Demerouti et al. 2016), more work engagement (Wolter et al. 2019), and a greater level of career commitment among younger officers (Aremu 2005). Further, domain-specific self-efficacy (i.e. self-efficacy related to a particular area of activity) has been linked to various outcomes. For example, in one study, officers’ belief in their own ability to use force safely and effectively (use-of-force self-efficacy) was significantly related to apprehensiveness to use force: more use-of-force self-efficacy predicted less apprehensiveness to use force (Marier and Baker 2024). In another study, officers who perceived themselves as effective in stressful situations (high coping self-efficacy) had higher evaluations of their work performance (Band and Manuele 1987). Only one study to date has linked police officers’ self-efficacy to procedural justice. Drawing on longitudinal survey data, Fildes et al. (2019) found that self-efficacy was positively correlated with Australian officers’ self-assessments that they act in a procedurally just way. Self-efficacy in that study was operationalized as officers’ confidence and competence in their interpersonal skills.

In relation to how self-efficacy is formed, studies in the wider occupational literature have shown that perceived organizational support (including support from supervisors and co-workers) is positively related to self-efficacy, and that self-efficacy mediates the relationship between workplace support and work engagement (Xanthopoulou et al. 2009; Caesens and Stinglhamber 2014). In a laboratory experiment, procedural justice perceptions were positively related to self-efficacy (Phillips 2002). Within policing, self-efficacy has been shown to mediate the relationship between workplace social support and work engagement among a sample of police officers in Germany (Wolter et al. 2019). Yet no studies have explicitly tested whether self-efficacy mediates the internal–external procedural justice relationship, but there is much to suggest from the extant research that the construct may serve as an important ‘bridge’ linking internal and external procedural justice.

First, there is reason to suspect that internal procedural justice will be important for enhancing officers’ self-efficacy. According to Bandura (1997), four sources of information contribute to the development of self-efficacy: (1) experiencing mastery over a job/situation; (2) vicarious experiences; (3) social persuasion; and (4) physiological and emotional states. That is, Bandura suggests that individuals obtain information about their efficacy from the vicarious experience of observing the actions of significant others (e.g. their supervisors may model particular behaviour), as well as from receiving evaluative judgements (i.e. verbal/social persuasion and feedback) from significant others. Observing supervisors treat staff unfairly, or receiving disparaging feedback from significant others, can leave individuals with a negative view about their ability to perform effectively. It may be that experiencing procedural justice from supervisors (either directly or indirectly) teaches officers how to apply procedural justice in interactions, which may enhance their own mastery of procedurally just communication.

Second, Bandura (1994) argues that a strong sense of self-efficacy enhances personal well-being and feelings of accomplishment, and that high self-efficacy fosters an intrinsic interest and commitment to do an activity well. In other words, Bandura’s (1994) perspective of self-efficacy suggests that officers high on self-efficacy are likely to experience higher job satisfaction and well-being because they feel more confident in their ability to do the job and feel more committed to doing their job well. If self-efficacy is a precursor to well-being and job satisfaction, then including self-efficacy in a model with these other two mediators may render well-being and job satisfaction variables redundant. Following this line of argument, self-efficacy may in fact be the more critical mechanism in the internal–external procedural justice relationship than either well-being or job satisfaction. Our study tests whether this is so.

THE CURRENT STUDY

This study tests a model linking internal and external procedural justice through three mechanisms: self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being (see Figure 1). Based on the extant research we make four main hypotheses:

H1: Internal procedural justice will be associated with greater levels of self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being.

H2: Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being will be associated with a greater commitment to external procedural justice.

H3: Self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being will partially mediate (i.e. explain) the relationship between internal and external procedural justice.

H4: Self-efficacy will be the most important mediator in the internal–external procedural justice relationship.

DATA AND METHODS

Participants

This study uses survey data collected from new police officers in England and Wales who joined the service via Police Now’s National Graduate Leadership Programme between 2019 and 2021. Police Now is a registered charity, and, since 2014, has established partnerships with 36 of 43 forces in England and Wales, selecting, recruiting, and developing more than 3,000 police officers. Police Now delivers three core programmes (The National Graduate Leadership Programme, National Detective Programme, and Frontline Leadership Programme), focussed on developing the leadership skills and behaviours that enable police officers to make a positive impact in communities, improve institutional cultures, and promote system change.

The surveys used in this study were fielded to police officers approximately 6 months following the end of their initial training (i.e. after 6 months of operational experience). A total of 389 police officers completed the online survey (137 from the 2019 cohort; 137 from the 2020 cohort; and 115 from the 2021 cohort), representing a response rate of 42 per cent. Over half of the sample were female (58 per cent) and the majority were White (85 per cent). A smaller proportion were of Asian (8 per cent), Black (1 per cent), Mixed (5 per cent), and Other (1 per cent) ethnicity. Compared to the overall police workforce in England and Wales, the current sample includes a greater proportion of female police officers (58 per cent compared to 34 per cent of all police officers) and a greater proportion of officers from Black or minority ethnic backgrounds (15 per cent compared to 8 per cent of all police officers; Home Office 2023). This is not surprising given the emphasis on the Police Now programme of attracting a more diverse officer pool to reflect the broader population in the UK.

Constructs and measurement model

The analysis involved one exogenous variable, three mediating variables, and one endogenous variable. Variables for analysis were generated via Confirmatory Factor Analysis (CFA). Table 1 presents the items used to construct the factors, descriptive statistics, factor loadings, and the Cronbach’s alpha of each factor. All items were measured on a 5-point Likert scale, with higher scores reflecting more positive assessments on each construct. The exogenous variable—internal procedural justice—was constructed with four items that reflect the extent to which officers feel their line managers are supportive and treat them with procedural justice (based on the work of Bradford and Quinton 2014). The first mediating variable—self-efficacy—was measured with two items reflecting the extent to which officers feel confident in their abilities to perform their job effectively (based on the work of Bandura 1997). The other two mediating variables—job satisfaction and well-being—were measured with one item each, capturing officers’ satisfaction with their job and current well-being at work. The endogenous variable—external procedural justice—was constructed with five items (taken from Bradford and Quinton 2014) that reflect the extent to which officers are committed to procedurally just policing.

To assess the scaling properties and empirical distinctiveness of our variables, we conducted a CFA using the R package lavaan. All observed indicators were set to ordinal, and the models were estimated using diagonally weighted least squares (DWLS) with robust standard errors. Model fit statistics showed the measurement model was a good fit for the data, with high Comparative Fit Index (CFI) and Tucker Lewis Index (TLI) values and a low root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA) value: χ² = 64.10, df = 31, P < .001; CFI = 0.995; TLI = 0.993; RMSEA = 0.053.¹

RESULTS

Table 2 presents pairwise correlations between the key variables of interest. Internal procedural justice was significantly correlated with all three potential mediators, and with external procedural justice. All three potential mediators were significantly correlated with external procedural justice, and with each other.

Next, we estimated a structural equation model (SEM) using the Lavaan package in R and DWLS with robust standard errors. The SEM tests for direct and indirect relationships between the variables of interest. Gender and ethnicity are controlled for in the models. The model fit the data well, with high CFI and TLI values, and a low RMSEA value (CFI = 0.993; TLI = 0.993; RMSEA = 0.044).

Figure 2 displays the model results with standardized path coefficients between the variables. Overall, the model explains approximately 23 per cent of the variance in external procedural justice (R² = 0.228), 11 per cent of the variance in self-efficacy (R² = 0.111), 20 per cent of the variance in job satisfaction (R² = 0.202), and 18 per cent of the variance in well-being (R² = 0.184).

Figure 2 shows internal procedural justice is significantly and positively associated with all three potential mediators (Hypothesis 1 supported). Officers who perceive their line manager to be procedurally just have significantly higher levels of self-efficacy (B = 0.329), job satisfaction (B = 0.431), and well-being (B = 0.424). However, only one mediator is significantly associated with external procedural justice: officers who have higher self-efficacy are more committed to procedurally just policing (B = 0.369). Neither job satisfaction nor well-being are significantly associated with external procedural justice in the model. This finding provides partial support for Hypothesis 2.

Looking at indirect effects (Table 3), we find a significant indirect path between internal procedural justice and external procedural justice through self-efficacy (B = 0.121, SE = 0.028, P < .001), suggesting that when officers feel their supervisors treat them with procedural justice, they have greater self-efficacy which, in turn, leads to a greater commitment to using procedural justice with the public. Neither the indirect path through job satisfaction nor well-being is significant. Internal procedural justice continues to have a direct relationship with external procedural justice, controlling for the other variables in the model (B = 0.221). Hence, partial support is provided for Hypothesis 3 and full support is provided for Hypothesis 4.

DISCUSSION

Using a sample of new police officers from England and Wales, this study tested a model linking internal and external procedural justice directly, as well as indirectly through self-efficacy, job satisfaction, and well-being. Although previous studies have tested job satisfaction and well-being as mediators (e.g. Trinkner et al. 2016; Wu et al. 2017), our study expanded the internal–external procedural justice framework by considering the mediating role of officer self-efficacy. We found that self-efficacy partially mediated the relationship between internal and external procedural justice, while well-being and job satisfaction did not. In other words, receiving procedural justice from their supervisor enhanced officers’ job-related self-efficacy, which, in turn, increased their commitment to deliver procedural justice externally. We confirmed that job satisfaction and well-being were less critical mediators in the internal–external procedural justice relationship once self-efficacy was included in the model.

Previous research has linked internal procedural justice to police officer self-legitimacy (i.e. beliefs in the rightfulness and acceptance of their authority and role; Bradford and Quinton 2014; Chen et al. 2021). Our findings suggest that fair and respectful treatment from supervisors also enhances officers’ confidence and belief in their abilities to perform their role effectively (i.e. their self-efficacy). This finding is consistent with studies from other professions which find that perceived organizational support from supervisors is positively related to self-efficacy (Xanthopoulou et al. 2009; Caesens and Stinglhamber 2014). As noted in the Introduction, four sources of information contribute to the development of self-efficacy: (1) active experiences of mastery; (2) vicarious experiences; (3) verbal or social persuasion, and (4) physiological and emotional states (Bandura 1997). We argued that internal procedural justice enhances officers’ self-efficacy through several of these routes. For example, it may be that experiencing procedural justice in interactions with one’s supervisors teaches officers how to apply this skill in their interactions, therefore enhancing their mastery of procedurally just communication. Supervisory procedural justice may also reduce job stress, and subsequently enhance physiological and emotional states. Future research should not only consider the relationship between internal procedural justice and self-efficacy, but explore the specific mechanisms involved (e.g. is it developing mastery of procedurally just communication, or emotional states that link supervisory procedural justice to higher self-efficacy?).

In line with this idea of developing mastery in procedurally just communication, our findings showed that self-efficacy was associated with a stronger commitment by officers to treat members of the public with procedural justice. Previous research has linked officer self-efficacy to higher levels of work engagement (Wolter et al. 2019), and career commitment (Aremu 2005). Fildes et al. (2019) linked self-efficacy to officers’ self-assessments that they behave in a procedurally just manner. It thus seems that the positive outcomes of self-efficacy extend to commitment to external procedural justice: when officers are confident in their abilities, they are more committed to delivering procedural justice externally. It could be that general self-efficacy beliefs (e.g. I can carry out my job effectively) mean officers are also more confident in their abilities to use procedural justice effectively in their interactions with citizens. This procedural justice-related self-efficacy may, in turn, influence their beliefs around how police should generally treat citizens. Fildes et al. (2019) made a similar argument. They suggested that officers’ self-efficacy regarding their interpersonal skills should be fostered to ensure that officers support using procedural justice with the public. They suggested that ‘interpersonal skills are a means of enforcing the law and keeping the peace in a manner that employs the core policing tactics of persuasion and negotiation, rather than coercion’ (193). As such, they recommended that if police organizations wish to develop police officers who are procedurally just, then improving officers’ confidence and competence (i.e. self-efficacy) in their interpersonal skills might be particularly effective.

In contrast to previous studies which included job satisfaction and well-being as mediators in the internal–external procedural justice relationship (Trinkner et al. 2016; Wu et al. 2017), we found that, after controlling for self-efficacy, these variables were not significantly associated with external procedural justice. Our results suggest that job satisfaction and well-being may only be related to external procedural justice insofar as they are linked to self-efficacy and that self-efficacy is more important to understanding the internal–external procedural justice link. It makes sense that those who have higher self-efficacy also have higher job satisfaction and well-being (our Table 2 findings support this idea). While job satisfaction and well-being should remain priorities for policing agencies, understanding the role of self-efficacy is important for police training purposes. That is, to improve police use of procedural justice with the public, training that increases police officers’ confidence in their ability to do their job is important (cf. Fildes et al. 2019).

That being said, self-efficacy only partially mediated the relationship between internal and external procedural justice (i.e. the direct association between internal and external procedural justice was significant). This finding is consistent with some previous research (Wu et al. 2017; Sun et al. 2019), and with Van Craen (2016a),‘fair policing from the inside out model’ which includes a direct pathway between internal and external procedural justice via supervisor modelling. It is thought that officers are likely to mirror the behaviour and attitudes exhibited by their supervisors through social learning. When supervisors treat officers with procedural justice they serve as role models; as a result, officers who experience supervisory procedural justice are more likely to draw on their social learning by replicating this type of treatment in their interactions with the public (Van Craen and Skogan 2017). The role of supervisor behaviour, and a culture of procedural fairness within policing organizations, should not be overlooked when seeking to encourage police to use procedural justice with the public.

Before concluding, we should note the limitations of our study. First, the data came from a cross-sectional survey. This methodology naturally precludes us from making causal inferences between variables, so future research should adopt longitudinal designs to test the proposed causal pathways more rigorously. Second, we were limited by the measures available in the data set. We did not, for example, have a measure of self-legitimacy or trust in citizens. Both variables have been shown to be significant mediators of the internal–external procedural justice relationship in previous studies (Van Craen and Skogan 2017; Chen et al. 2021). Further, our measure of self-efficacy was a general measure related to the police officer role rather than a domain-specific measure (e.g. efficacy beliefs related to procedural justice or interpersonal skills). Bandura (2006) advocates for the use of domain-specific measures of self-efficacy because of their superior explanatory power. Hence, future research should measure self-efficacy as officers’ confidence in using procedural justice in their interactions with citizens, as opposed to a more general measure of self-efficacy.

Finally, we used a sample of new police officers who were part of Police Now’s National Graduate Leadership Programme. Our sample of officers did not enter policing through the traditional training route, but instead joined the force immediately after graduating from university or having pursued several years of work experience prior to completing the programme. Our sample is therefore not representative of all police officers, nor of all new police officers. The Police Now National Graduate Leadership Programme has a competitive recruitment process where candidates are assessed for their leadership, motivations, decision-making, problem-solving skills, and self-awareness. Officers who join via Police Now may therefore have higher pre-existing levels of self-efficacy compared to the officers who join by the usual route. Further, our sample included a greater proportion of female officers and black and minority ethnic officers. Although our sample is not representative of all police officers in England and Wales, given the increasing diversity within the police workforce in recent years (Home Office 2023) and the retention challenges with new police officers (particularly those who identify as female and who are from minority ethnic backgrounds), this study is a timely exploration into possible ways police organizations might improve the experiences of new officers and, hopefully, retain them within the service. After all, our findings revealed that new officers who perceived their supervisors as more procedurally just had greater levels of job satisfaction, well-being, and self-efficacy to do their job. Nevertheless, future studies should replicate our findings with a more representative sample.

CONCLUSION

Treating the public with procedural justice is a key deliverable for policing organizations. Our study makes an important contribution to the literature by showing that police self-efficacy goes a long way in explaining the internal–external procedural justice relationship. When officers are treated with procedural justice by their supervisors, they feel more confident in their ability to do their job and are more willing to use procedural justice in their interactions with members of the public. Moreover, when accounting for self-efficacy, previously relevant factors including job satisfaction and well-being were no longer significant. Future research should continue to examine the role of self-efficacy in enabling police to undertake important functions of their jobs and the role of fair treatment from supervisors in promoting self-efficacy.

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank the team at Police Now for providing access to the data used in this study.

Conflict of interest

None declared.

Funding

None declared.

REFERENCES

Footnotes