Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130

DOI 10.1007/s12103-008-9058-7

Sex and Experience: Modeling the Public’s Perceptions

of Justice, Satisfaction, and Attitude Toward the Courts

George E. Higgins & Scott E. Wolfe & Nelseta Walters

Published online: 15 January 2009

# Southern Criminal Justice Association 2009

Abstract The purpose of the present study is to examine the influence that sex has
on the interconnection between justice, satisfaction with the courts, and attitudes
toward the courts. Using national level polling data, the results show that different
forms of justice coalesce into a latent measure of justice. Further, the results show
that sex differences in our latent measure of justice do exist. In addition, those with
experience with the course have a negative attitude toward the court system. Finally,
the results show that the impact of justice on attitude toward the court system is
partially mediated by satisfaction with the court. Policy implications are discussed.

Keywords Procedural justice . Polls . Courts

The issue of public perceptions of the courts has received an increased amount of
research attention in the past few decades. Studying how the public evaluates the
courts is important in order to maintain public confidence and perceptions of
legitimacy in the courts (Fossati and Meeker 1997; Tyler 1990, 2001; Tyler and Huo
2002). Research has focused on the demographic markers that influence the public’s
evaluations of the courts. In particular, the impact of respondent sex and experience
with the courts has been examined in recent years (Fossati and Meeker 1997; Tyler
1990, 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002; Sun and Wu 2006). For instance, experience has
been shown to be an important measure that influences public perceptions (Fossati
and Meeker 1997; Tyler 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002; Sun and Wu 2006). However,
there has been mixed results in terms of respondent sex (Fossati and Meeker 1997;
Tyler 1990, 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002; Sun and Wu 2006). While these researchers
offer valuable insight into whether or not sex and experience matter in the public’s
evaluations of the courts, they have neglected to differentiate between evaluations
and attitudes. Previous studies treat satisfaction and attitude as the same concept.

G. E. Higgins (*) : S. E. Wolfe : N. Walters

Department of Justice Administration, University of Louisville, Louisville, KY 40292, USA
e-mail: gehigg01@gwise.louisville.edu
Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130 117

Cropanzano et al. (2001) argue that there are two different types of attitudes (i.e.,
system-oriented attitudes [organizational commitment, trust, and satisfaction]) and
event-oriented attitudes [performance appraisal or views about situations]. Tyler
(2001) used survey items of attitude toward the courts and satisfaction (i.e.,
performance) with the courts to capture an overall evaluation measure, and Sun and
Wu (2006) used procedural and distributive justice items to measure evaluations.
Similarly, Fossati and Meeker (1997) used procedural justice measures to represent
respondents’ evaluations. While the findings of these studies are instructive, the
present study argues that the measures of “court evaluation” are confounding
satisfaction and attitude toward the court measures. Previous studies fail to take into
account the potential differences between satisfaction and attitude measures. Thus,
without disaggregation of the measures the studies confound system- and event-
oriented attitudes. Further, there has been a lack of theoretical development in the
court-perception literature on how the public may view satisfaction and attitudes
differently and how they may work in concert.
Organizational behavior researchers examine satisfaction and overall attitude as
separate entities (Ambrose et al. 2007; Colquitt 2001). In examining consumer
complaint handling Ambrose et al. (2007) operationalized satisfaction in organiza-
tion performance and overall attitude toward the organization as distinct concepts. In
particular, Ambrose et al. (2007) proposed a conceptual model that includes
perceptions of procedural, distributive, and interpersonal justice in its attempt to
explain consumer satisfaction with complaint handling and overall attitude toward an
organization. This conceptual model has yet to be used to explain public attitudes
toward the court system. Thus, a gap exists in the court-perception literature.
Therefore, the application of the Ambrose et al. (2007) theoretical model attitudes
toward the courts and whether or not sex and experience with the courts influences
public perceptions will advance the literature.
The purpose of the present study is to contribute to the literature by examining
how biological sex and experience with the courts influence the links that justice
(i.e., procedural, distributive, and interpersonal justice) has with satisfaction in court
performance and overall attitude toward the courts. Our study implements the model
proposed by Ambrose et al. (2007) that suggests that the link between an
individual’s perception of justice and attitude toward the court is mediated by his
or her satisfaction with court performance. We examine the conceptualization of
justice adopted from Lind (2001), who argued that procedural, distributive, and
interpersonal justice come together to form an overall latent measure of justice. The
Ambrose et al. (2007) model is advanced through the incorporation of the justice
measure. The importance of our study is twofold. For one, this study will provide
information as to how feelings of justice influence satisfaction and attitude toward
the courts. Further, the study will allow for an advanced understanding of how sex
and experience with the courts influences perceptions of justice, satisfaction with
court performance, and overall attitude toward the courts.
To make this contribution to the literature, the present study will first discuss
previous research on sex and court perceptions and experience and court
perceptions. Next, a discussion of distributive, procedural, and interpersonal justice
will be included to clarify the arguments of each idea. The methods and measures
118 Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130

used in the present study will then be addressed. Finally, the study will present the
results of the analysis and conclude with a brief discussion of the findings.

Sex and Court Evaluations

A number of researchers have argued that the socialization process is different for
men and women; thus, their evaluation and perceptions may be different (Chesney-
Lind 1997; Easton 1967; Gilligan 1993; Hagan 1989; Hagan et al. 1993; Jaros and
Roper 1980; Vila 1994). Fossati and Meeker (1997) argued that factors that
influence socialization, (such as biological sex), influence perceptions of the courts.
However, the research is mixed concerning whether or not sex makes a difference in
court evaluations. For instance, several studies have found little or no independent
effects of sex on evaluations of the courts (Higgins and Jordan 2005; Tyler 1990,
2001; Tyler and Huo 2002). Conversely, Sun and Wu (2006) used survey data from
982 U.S. residents and showed that sex did impact citizens’ perceptions of the
courts. The mixed findings may be attributed to the analytical approach that was
used in the studies (Fossati and Meeker 1997). An alternative approach argued by
Fossati and Meeker (1997) is to use structural equation models (SEM) to elicit sex
differences. In a sample of 931 U.S. citizens Fossati and Meeker (1997) used
separate SEMs to demonstrate that sex played a significant role in evaluations of the
courts. Thus, the present study will utilize a SEM approach to examine sex
differences in court satisfaction and attitude.

Experience and Court Perceptions

The research on the impact that experience with the courts has on court perceptions
has produced mixed results (Fossati and Meeker 1997). Gibson (1991) argued that
the form of experience (i.e., direct or indirect) is likely to produce varying attitudes
toward institutions such as the courts. In support of this argument, Fossati and
Meeker (1997) demonstrated that both indirect and direct experiences with the courts
influenced the public’s perceptions of such institutions. Such effects were shown to
differ by sex and race (Fossati and Meeker 1997). Recently, Sun and Wu (2006)
demonstrated that those individuals who had personal contact with the courts were
more likely to evaluate them less favorably, particularly female respondents. The
results indicate that experience with the courts and sex may have important
interconnections. Tyler (2001) used a sample of 1,826 U.S. respondents to show that
personal involvement with the court system influenced evaluations of the courts and
perceptions of court performance. Specifically, for those that had previous personal
experience with the courts the quality of treatment that they experienced mattered
more than the fairness of the outcome received.
Conversely, those people with no personal court experience used quality of
treatment and fairness of outcome equally in evaluations of the court and
assessments of court performance. Importantly, Tyler (2001) used evaluations (i.e.,
attitudes) of the court and perceptions of court performance as dependent variables.
Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130 119

However, he did not examine whether or not perceptions of court performance (i.e.,
satisfaction) influence attitudes toward the court. Further, procedural, distributive,
and interpersonal justice was treated as separate concepts.

Distributive Justice

The outcome-based model of distributive justice argues that citizens’ evaluations of

the courts are contingent on the fairness of how services are distributed to members
of the community (Tyler and Huo 2002). Specifically, those that feel the courts
distribute outcomes and services to the community without bias are more likely to
have favorable evaluations of the courts. Distributive justice has successfully been
used to explain court perceptions in a number of studies (Fossati and Meeker 1997;
Sun and Wu 2006; Tyler 1990, 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002).
However, distributive justice has been shown to vary among sexes. Specifically,
black males tended to see less distributive fairness in the courts than black females
and Latino females tended to view differential treatment more often than Latino
males (Tyler and Huo 2002).

Procedural Justice

Procedural justice is a process-based model that attempts to explain court evaluations

through examining people’s feelings of court procedure fairness (Tyler 1990, 2001;
Tyler and Huo 2002). Individuals that view the procedures of the courts to be fair are
likely to have favorable evaluations of them as authority institutions. A number of
studies have demonstrated that procedural justice is a better predictor of court
perceptions than distributive justice (Tyler 1990, 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002).
Procedural justice has been used in a number of different ways through several
academic disciplines. Fossati and Meeker’s (1997) research showed that indirect
experience with the courts was important for females in evaluations of court
procedural justice, whereas direct experience was important for males in evaluations
of court procedural justice. Further, Sun and Wu (2006) indicated that procedural
justice was important for both males and females; however, females tended to have
lower evaluations of procedural fairness. Additionally, those that did not have direct
contact with the courts tended to find less procedural justice in the courts than those
with direct contact (Sun and Wu 2006).

Interpersonal Justice

Interpersonal justice is often regarded as a component of procedural justice and

refers to the courts treating citizens with dignity and respect (Tyler 1990, 2001; Tyler
and Huo 2002). When individuals view the courts as treating people with respect,
acting politely during proceedings, and handling cases with dignity, they are more
likely to have favorable evaluations of the courts. Interpersonal justice is sometimes
conceptualized as a separate idea in itself from procedural justice (Ambrose et al.
120 Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130

2007; Tyler and Huo 2002). The Ambrose et al. (2007) model of organization
satisfaction and attitude considered interpersonal justice separately from procedural
and distributive justice.
In terms of evaluations of the courts, interpersonal justice was shown to be a
stronger predictor than distributive justice (Tyler 2001). Sun and Wu (2006)
demonstrated that black females with no court contact were the only group to have
statistically significant links with interpersonal justice evaluations when procedural
justice and interpersonal justice were treated as separate concepts. Further, Higgins
and Jordan (2005) showed that interpersonal justice measures were equally
important for males and females.

Theoretical Perspective

Overall, the literature suggests that procedural, distributive, and interpersonal justice
have helped provide an understanding of how the public perceives the court system
in terms of justice and attitudes toward the courts. Further, the literature indicates
that sex differences in these perceptions do exist. In addition, the literature indicates
that those that have direct experience with the courts are more likely to demonstrate
different reactions to justice and attitudes toward the courts. However, the studies
that provide this sort of understanding do not necessarily provide an understanding of
how justice, satisfaction with the courts, and attitudes toward the courts work together.
Ambrose et al. (2007) proposed a model based on events that provided a
theoretical understanding. They argued that attitudes toward any organization would
be contingent on how the public viewed the organization’s processes as being just.
Ambrose et al. (2007) argued that justice (i.e., procedural, distributive, and
interpersonal justice) would have positive and direct links with satisfaction. This
would indicate that the more justice that the individual perceived, the more the
individual would be satisfied with the handling of the events. Ambrose et al. (2007)
further argued that the individual’s satisfaction with the handling of events would
have a direct link with the public’s attitudes toward the organization.
This perspective has important implications as to how satisfaction and attitudes
are measured. Unlike Tyler (2001) and Sun and Wu (2006) in the court literature,
Ambrose et al. (2007) followed Cropanzano et al.’s (2001) arguments about
attitudes. Cropanzano et al. (2001) argued that there are two different types of
attitudes. The first type is system-oriented attitudes (about organizations as a whole),
which include organizational commitment, trust, and satisfaction. The second type is
event-oriented attitudes, which include performance appraisals or views about
situations. This allows researchers to disentangle satisfaction from attitudes to better
understand how these two concepts work together rather than just represent one
concept. For instance, Ambrose et al. (2007) used a sample of 350 employees to
show that the three forms of justice (i.e., procedural, distributive, and interpersonal)
have direct links with individuals’ satisfaction with an organization’s handling of cases
and that satisfaction with handling cases has a link with attitudes toward the organization.
Ambrose et al. (2007) chose to ignore the important correlations among the
different forms of justice. According to Lind (2001), researchers have two options
when understanding the correlation among the different forms of justice. On one
Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130 121

hand, researchers can ignore the correlation. On the other hand, researchers can
follow Lind’s (2001) suggestion to of testing to see if the different forms of justice
coalesce into a single justice latent measure. In the empirical literature, to date no
study has examined the core links of the Ambrose et al. (2007) model while taking
sex and experience with the courts into consideration. Further, no study has
considered whether the different forms of justice form a latent measure, as Lind
(2001) hypothesized. Therefore, a compelling study would consider these issues
when examining the perceptions of the courts.

The Present Study

The purpose of the present study is to examine the influence that sex has on the
interconnection between justice, satisfaction with the courts, and attitudes toward the
courts. While considering the role of biological sex and experience with the courts,
this study provides a structural understanding of how different forms (i.e.,
procedural, distributive, and interpersonal) come together to form a general justice
measure. Next, the study provides an understanding of the direct and indirect effects
of justice on attitudes toward the courts. The results of this study make two
contributions to the literature. First, this study allows for a direct understanding of
how males and females potentially differ in their attitudes toward the court. Second,
this study allows for a better understanding of the connections between biological
sex and justice, while controlling for experience with the courts. Therefore, this
article presents valuable information about justice, satisfaction with the courts, and
attitudes toward the court that is not present in the current literature.

Method

Procedures and Sample

The data used for this study come from the Public Opinion on the Courts in the
United States (2002) study (provided by the National Center for State Courts).
Between March 22 and May 3, 2000, the University of Indiana Public Opinion
Laboratory conducted telephone interviews from a national random-digit-dialing
sample. The target sample was 1,005 randomly selected residents of the United
States, with an oversample of 308 African-Americans (i.e., blacks) and 254 Latinos
(i.e., Hispanics). The oversampling procedure was used to ensure that the major
groups of American society were heard. The final sample contained 1,567 residents.1
This study does not use the weighting structure provided with the data, although
such weighting is possible. Table 1 presents the demographic profile of the residents.

1
These data are freely available from the International Consortium on Political and Social Research. The
ICPSR number for the data is 3,864.
122 Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130

Table 1 Demograpic profile

Measure F %

Gender:
Male 689 44.0
Female 878 56.0
Race/Ethnicity:
White 815 52.0
Black 404 25.8
Hispanic 304 19.4
Other 35 2.2
Education:
Less than High School 134 8.6
High school Diploma/GED 445 28.4
Some College or Technical 447 28.5
Associate’s Degree 102 6.5
Bachelor’s Degree 264 16.8
Some Graduate School 33 2.1
Graduate or Professional Degree 134 8.6
Income:
Less than 10 K 142 9.1
10–20 K 217 13.8
20–30 K 203 13.0
30–40 K 189 12.1
40–50 K 138 8.8
50–60 K 114 7.3
60–70 K 98 6.3
70–80 K 59 3.8
80–120 K 127 8.1
More than 120 K 66 4.2

Measures

The measures for this study consisted of attitudes toward the courts, satisfaction with
the courts, procedural, distributive, interpersonal justice, sex, and experience.

Attitudes toward the Courts Following Ambrose et al. (2007), the main dependent
measure used in this study captured the citizens’ attitudes toward the courts.
Specifically, citizens responded to: “How do you feel about the courts?” The citizens
marked their responses on a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from least
favorable (1) to most favorable (5). Higher scores on this item indicated a more
positive attitude toward the courts.

Satisfaction with the Courts Similar to Sun and Wu (2006), we used five items to
capture the citizens’ satisfaction with the courts. In particular, the citizens were asked
to provide their view as to how well the courts handled criminal cases that involve
violence, robbery, drug abusers or drunk drivers, auto accidents and medical
malpractice claims, and juvenile delinquency. The final question pertained to family
relations. The citizens’ provided their responses using a 5-point Likert-type scale
(1=lowest to 5=highest). Higher scores on the items indicated greater satisfaction
with the courts.
Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130 123

Procedural Justice The procedural justice measures were two items. The first item
was: “how often do you think the courts use fair procedures in handling cases?” The
second item was: “how often do you think people receive fair outcomes when they
deal with the courts?” The citizens recorded their responses to these two items using
a 5-point Likert-type scale that ranged from Never (1) to Always (5). Higher scores
on the items represented stronger views of procedural justice. A Cronbach’s alpha
coefficient of.76 indicated acceptable internal consistency with these two items.

Distributive Justice Following Tyler (2001), the distributive justice measure

contained four items. The items considered whether or not the members of four
racial/ethnic and income groups received equal treatment in the courts. The four
groups are African-Americans, Hispanics, Non-English-speakers, and people with
low incomes. Factor analysis with a Scree-test indicated that the items coalesced into
a single factor. The internal consistency for the items is acceptable at.86. In our view,
the four items capture distribution of justice across different racial and ethnic
categories. We are assuming that the perception of justice is distributed equally
across these groups and that we have accurately captured distributive justice.

Interpersonal Justice Similar to Ambrose et al. (2007), we used six items to measure
interpersonal justice. The items are as follows: “Courts are concerned with peoples’
rights?” “Courts treat people with respect?” “Courts treat people politely?” “Courts
make decisions based on facts?” “Courts listen carefully to people?” “Courts are
sensitive to concerns of average citizens?” The citizens recorded their responses on a
4-point Likert-type scale that was anchored by the responses strongly disagree (1) to
strongly agree (4). Higher scores on the scale indicated a greater degree of
interpersonal justice for the citizens’ views on the courts. The items for interpersonal
justice created a single factor based on results from factor analysis with a Scree-test.
Further, the items had acceptable internal consistency (.89).

Sex Biological sex was captured by asking citizens to report whether they were male
or female. The item was dichotomized as: 1=male and 0=female. For the final
sample used in this study, 44 percent of the sample was male.

Experience To capture experience with the courts, we followed Sun and Wu (2006)
and used a single item that captured recent court contact. This item captured whether
the respondent’s experience was as a litigant, witness, or juror. This measure was
coded as a dichotomous measure where (1) is experience and (0) is no experience in
the courts in the last twelve months.

Results

The results for the present study were generated using structural equation modeling
(SEM), which came from Mplus 4.2. SEM is a process that allows for the testing of
theories that are hypothesized to explain the covariances among measures (Kline
2005). Unlike ordinary least squares regression (OLS), SEM tests these hypothesized
124 Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130

pathways simultaneously. Utilizing maximum likelihood estimation, which tends to

remain robust when the data depart from normality, the SEM process is able to
provide information concerning the psychometric (i.e., measurement) qualities of the
measures. Further, SEM is able to use the psychometric data to provide structural
estimates (i.e., estimates between latent measures) of pathways that are not
confounded by measurement error. Therefore, SEM provides precise estimates-
measurement and structural-that cannot be obtained using OLS.
For the present study, the SEM process takes place in two steps. The first step is a
presentation of a measurement model. The measurement model is a confirmatory
factor analysis (CFA) that allows for the assessment of construct validity of the items
from the measure of the study by determining how well the model fits the data and
by examining of the factor loadings (i.e., qualities of the estimate) (Model one). A
unique feature of the present study is the use of multiple indicator multiple cause
(MIMIC) measure.
A MIMIC model is an extension of CFA. In its most basic sense, a MIMIC model
is a SEM that contains one or more latent measures that have been identified by
multiple observed measures and multiple exogenous measures. The latent measures
are constructed by considering the reliable and shared variance of the observed
measures. The remaining variance of the latent measures is distributed into error
terms. In a traditional CFA, the error is not explained and a MIMIC measure-in this
study biological sex-may explain this error. Sex is used as an exogenous measure
that will result in a regression coefficient that will indicate the link between sex,
justice, and satisfaction with the courts. Because sex is a dichotomous measure, the
regression coefficient represents a mean difference between males and females. In
other words, the paths of sex on justice and satisfaction with courts reflect mean
differences across the sexes.
Second, a structural model is presented to provide an understanding of whether
justice has a link with satisfaction with the courts whether satisfaction with the
courts has a link with attitudes toward the courts, and whether justice has a direct
link with attitude toward the court (Model two). In the present study, we extend the
MIMIC model process to our structural model because attitude toward the courts is
indicated by a single item. Therefore, attitude toward the courts does not appear in
the measurement model.
Central to the SEM process are the covariances among the measures that were
standardized to correlations. The correlations were generated before the SEM
process could commence. The correlations among the measures were between.12
to.65 (see Table 2 for the correlation table). Overall, the correlations demonstrated
enough shared variance to suggest proceeding to the SEM process.

Model One

To develop the measurement model, we used the composite scores of procedural

justice, interpersonal justice, and distributive justice as observed measures to form
the justice latent measure. This reflects our understanding that these three measures
form a second-order justice measure (see Lind 2001, for a cogent argument of this
process). In addition, we used the five items that represent satisfaction with the
courts to for a satisfaction latent measure. The attitude toward the courts is a single
Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130 125

Table 2 Correlation among measures

Measure 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11

Attitude toward Courts 1.00

Court Handling Violent Crime .45* 1.00
Court Handling Drug Crime .44* .65* 1.00
Court Handling Civil Cases .29* .54* .48* 1.00
Court Handling Family Cases .37* .47* .44* .55* 1.00
Court Handling Juvenile Cases .36* .60* .55* .52* .56* 1.00
Procedural Justice .40* .36* .36* .33* .36* .35* 1.00
Distributive Justice .20* .20* .16* .19* .19* .18* .31* 1.00
Interpersonal Justice .42* .36* .34* .31* .32* .33* .51* .28* 1.00
Sex .01 .04 .03 .01 −.02 −.01 .05 .06 .04 1.00
Experience −.06 .01 −.10 .01 −.00 −.00 .02 −.01 .01 .05 1.00

measure and was not included in the measurement model. Further, we include a
measure of biological sex so that we may understand the biological sex differences
in these measures.
The measurement model for this study demonstrated a good fit with the data (see
Appendix A for a tabular presentation of the measurement model). Specifically, the
chi-square value was 172.37 (p=.00), which indicates that there is a misfit between
the data and the model. However, several (Gibbs et al. 2003; Hu and Bentler 1999)
have argued that the chi-square method of model fit is sensitive to sample size and
could provide misleading results. Therefore, additional fit indices were consulted
(comparative fit index [CFI]=.97, root mean square error of approximation
[RMSEA]=.05, standardized root mean square residual [SRMR]=.02). The results
from the additional fit indices indicate that the model indeed fits the data (see Hu and
Bentler 1999, for the standards of these particular fit indices).
The measurement model provides the factor loadings for the observed measures
and their connection to their hypothesized latent factors. All of the factor loadings
are above Kline’s (2005) standard of.50 for a large factor loading. The distributive
justice factor loading of.41, while not large is still substantial. Given Lind’s (2001)
argument that distributive justice is part of the larger justice latent measure, we
retained the distributive justice measure. Further, all of the factor loadings were
statistically significant. Overall, the size of the factor loadings and their significance
indicates that these measures are suitable indicators of their hypothesized latent
measures. Thus, we argue that we have found convergent and discriminant validity
(i.e., construct validity) of these items.
Measurement models are able to show the covariance of the latent measures. In
the present study, we show that the covariance between justice and satisfaction with
the courts is strong and positive (r=.65). That is, we are able to show that justice and
satisfaction with the courts have a link, which provides preliminary support for our
view that these two latent measures are connected.
In addition, we show sex differences among the latent measures. In particular, we
show that males are more likely to perceive that the courts are just than females
(B=.07). Our data do not show a specific difference between males and females with
respect to satisfaction with the courts (B=.01). These results indicate that justice is
126 Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130

viewed more positively from males than females.2 This is similar to previous studies
(Fosatti and Meeker 1997; Tyler 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002). Experience with the
courts is used as a MIMIC measure in the measurement model. Experience did not
have a link with both latent measures of justice (B=.01) and satisfaction (B=.02).
This is not in accord with previous results (Tyler 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002).
Typically, a MIMIC model study would be able to draw conclusions at this point.
However, in the present study, we were not able to include our measure of attitude
toward the courts because it is a single item indicator. Therefore, we include sex in
an inclusive structural model (i.e., direct and indirect effects) so that we can
determine if there are differences in attitudes toward the courts.

Model Two

The second model examines the view that satisfaction with the courts mediates the
link that justice has with attitudes toward the courts and examines the direct effect
that justice has on attitudes toward the courts. In addition, we seek to understand the
sex differences in justice, satisfaction with the courts, and attitude toward the courts.
Therefore, we developed a MIMIC model that allowed for sex to be regressed on
these measures.
The fit of the structural model and the data is good (chi-square=232.03, p=.00;
CFI=.96, RMSEA=.06; SRMR=.02). Figure 1 shows that justice has a link with
satisfaction with the courts (B=.65) and that satisfaction with the courts has a link
with attitudes toward the courts (B=.29), while justice has a direct link with attitude
toward the courts (B=.38). This indicates that satisfaction with the courts is not able
to remove the effect justice has with attitude toward the courts. In our view, this
result is consistent with that from Ambrose et al. (2007). Unique to the present study,
we examined the biological sex differences in justice, satisfaction with the courts,
and attitude toward the courts. The results are similar to those from the measurement
model. The results indicate that the only statistically significant difference is between
sex and justice (B=.07). Again, this is consistent with previous research (Fossatti
and Meeker 1997; Tyler 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002). This allows us to further
conclude that males are more likely to see the court system as being just than are
females. We further show that experience does not have a link with justice or
satisfaction with the courts. However, we do show that there is a mean difference
between those that have experience and those with no experience with the courts in
the context of attitudes (B=−.06). This is consistent with (Tyler 2001; Tyler and Huo
2002). That is, those individuals that have experience with the courts have lower
attitudes with toward the courts.

2
We examined a series of additional models to determine the observed variable differences using the
MIMIC model format. We did not find any statistically significant differences among the observed
measures. Thus, we believe that the differences found in the latent measure are due to mean differences as
a whole. To solidify our view, we examined simulation models (n = 1,000 models) of this issue and
showed that the differences are not due to sample size differences. Therefore, we conclude that the
difference is due to differences in the latent measure mean. These additional analyses are available from
the second author on request.
Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130 127

Experience

-.03(.06) Sex
Experience -.01(.24)

.01(.32) Satisfaction
with Courts Sex
Sex

.29* (.03)
.65* (.03)
.07*(.10) -.02(.05)

Attitude
Toward
Justice
Courts
.38* (.03)

-.06*(.05)

Experience

Fig. 1 Direct and indirect effects model with justice, satisfaction with the courts, and attitudes toward the
courts

Discussion

The purpose of the present study was to provide an understanding of how the
public’s views on justice come together in order to understand satisfaction with
handling cases and attitudes toward the courts. This study makes three unique
contributions. First, the study examines the efficacy of the Ambrose et al. (2007)
model to determine how justice, satisfaction with the courts, and attitudes toward the
courts come together. Second, this study examines the model from Lind (2001) in
which the three justice measures come together to form a latent justice measure.
Third, the present study examines the effect that sex and direct experience with the
court system have on justice, satisfaction with handling cases, and attitudes toward
the courts. Supportive results of these contributions provide information as to how
the public evaluates the court system and how policy officials may be able to gain
better compliance with court decisions.
We first examined the argument from Lind (2001) that the three justice measures
come together to form a latent measure of justice. Specifically, we found that the
model fits well, with relatively strong factor loadings among the observed measures.
This supports Lind’s (2001) view that the different measures of justice come together
to form a latent measure of justice. This indicates that justice is larger than any one
measure. While some may argue that it is important to understand how the different
forms of justice operate explaining organizational behavior and public perceptions
128 Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130

(Tyler 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002), from our results, we believe that it is equally as
important to understand how the idea of justice as a whole operates in order to
understand public perceptions. Thus, we conclude that this method of using justice is
equally as valid as using the different forms of justice.
After examining whether justice forms a latent measure, we then examined the
role of sex and experience in understanding justice, satisfaction with the courts, and
attitudes toward the courts while considering the causal model proposed by Ambrose
et al. (2007). We were able to support the Ambrose et al.’s (2007) model in
understanding the connections between justice, satisfaction with the courts, and
attitudes toward the courts. We examined a more fully specified model that accounts
for sex and direct experience, examining the connection that sex and direct
experience have on justice, satisfaction with the courts, and attitudes toward the
courts. Our results suggest that males were more likely than females to view the
courts as just. This would indicate that males are more likely than females to
perceive that the different forms of justice are taking place in the court system. This
finding is consistent with the literature that only examined the specific forms of
justice (Fossati and Meeker 1997; Sun and Wu 2006). Further, our results indicate
that individuals that have direct experience with the courts are more likely to have a
negative attitude toward the court. This would indicate that the experience in court,
while viewed as just and satisfactory, does not necessarily provide a positive
evaluation of the court system as a whole. This is consistent with previous literature
(Tyler 2001; Tyler and Huo 2002).
These results are able to show policy makers interested in improving the
perception of the court system for compliance purposes judgments areas that need to
be improved. For instance, policy makers need to improve how justice is perceived
among females to improve their perception of the court system. Further, policy
makers need to make sure that additional care is given to those individuals that have
to experience the court system. Policy makers should become aware of the
development of attitudes toward the court system and should provide justice in
order to maintain the satisfaction with the court system.
While our findings are able to provide implications for policy makers, the present
study does have limits. Specifically, the findings from the present study come from a
cross-sectional dataset. This limits our ability to think of the links between the latent
measures as casual measures. However, previous studies of justice in the context of
the courts have used this strategy (see Fossati and Meeker 1997). Further, our
measure of attitudes toward the courts is captured using a single measure. However,
the Ambrose et al. (2007) model has not been applied to the court system, and this
study represents an important advance in our understanding of perceptions of the
courts. Therefore, the use of a single-item indicator is proper for an initial study.
Despite the limits, the present study provides an understanding of the public’s
perceptions of the court system through justice, satisfaction with the courts, and
attitudes toward the courts by sex and direct experience. In particular, the results
show that justice has a link with satisfaction with the courts, and satisfaction with the
courts has a direct link with attitudes toward the courts. Further, justice maintains a
direct link with attitudes toward the courts. Males are more likely than females to
consider the court system just, and those individuals having direct experience with
the courts have poorer attitudes toward the courts. Future studies that expand the
Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130 129

scope of attitudes toward the courts and that use longitudinal data will improve our
understanding. For now, the results indicate that justice and satisfaction with the
courts impact the public’s attitudes toward the courts and that perception differ by
sex and direct experience.

Appendix A. Measurement Model for the latent measures.

Measure Standard Error Standardized Estimate

Justice
Procedural Justice .00 .74
Distributive Justice .11 .41*
Interpersonal Justice .15 .69*
Satisfaction with Courts: Courts Handling-
Violent Cases .74
Drug Cases .03 .68*
Civil Cases .04 .71*
Family Cases .04 .71*
Juvenile Cases .04 .77*
Sex Effects
Justice .10 .07*
Satisfaction with the courts .07 .01

*=p>.05, Note: Procedural Justice and Violent Cases were used as indicator measures for identification
purposes.

References

Ambrose, M., Hess, R. L., & Ganesan, S. (2007). The relationship between justice and attitudes: An
examination of justice’s effects on event and system-related attitudes. Organizational Behavior and
Human Decision Processes, 103, 21–36.
Chesney-Lind, M. (1997). The female offender: Girls, women, and crime. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Colquitt, J. A. (2001). On the dimensionality of organizational justice: A construct validation of a
measure. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 386–400.
Cropanzano, R., Byrne, Z. S., Bobocel, D. R., & Rupp, D. R. (2001). Moral virtues, fairness heuristics,
social entities, and other denizens of organizational justice. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 58, 164–
209.
Easton, D. (1967). A system analysis of political life. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
Fossati, T. E., & Meeker, J. W. (1997). Evaluations of institutional legitimacy and court system fairness: A
study of gender differences. Journal of Criminal Justice, 25, 141–154.
Gibbs, J. J., Giever, D., & Higgins, G. E. (2003). A test of Gottfredson and Hirschi’s general theory using
structural equation modeling. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 30, 441–458.
Gibson, J. L. (1991). Institutional legitimacy, procedural justice, and compliance with Supreme Court
Decisions: A question of causality. Law and Society Review, 25, 631–635.
Gilligan, C. (1993). In a different voice. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Hagan, J. (1989). Structural criminology. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University Press.
Hagan, J., Gillis, A. R., & Simpson, J. (1993). The power of control in sociological theories of
delinquency. In F. Adler, & W. Laufer (Eds.), New Directions in Criminological Theory (pp. 363–
398). New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
130 Am J Crim Just (2009) 34:116–130

Higgins, G. E., & Jordan, K. L. (2005). Race and gender: Are the models the same in explaining
evaluations of the court system. Criminal Justice Studies: A Critical Journal of Crime, Law, and
Society, 18, 81–97.
Hu, L. T., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structural analysis:
Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.
Jaros, D., & Roper, R. (1980). The US Supreme Court: Myth, diffuse support, specific support, and
legitimacy. American Politics Quarterly, 8, 85–105.
Kline, R. B. (2005). Principles and practices of structural equation modeling (2nd ed.). New York, NY:
Guildford Press.
Lind, E. A. (2001). Fairness heuristic theory: Justice judgments as pivotal cognitions in organizational
relations. In M.S. Greenberg, & R. Cropanzano (Eds.), Advances in organizational justice (pp. 56–88).
Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Sun, I. Y., & Wu, Y. (2006). Citizens perceptions of the courts: The impact of race, gender, and recent
experience. Journal of Criminal Justice, 34, 457–467.
Tyler, T. R. (1990). Why people obey the law. New Haven: Yale.
Tyler, T. R. (2001). Public trust and confidence in legal authorities: What do majority and minority group
members want from the law and legal institutions? Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 19, 215–235.
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with the police and
courts. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
Vila, B. J. (1994). A general paradigm for understanding criminal behavior: Extending evolutionary
ecological theory. Criminology, 32, 311–359.