This article was downloaded by: [Ellen S.

Cohn]
On: 10 October 2012, At: 09:51
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Victims & Offenders

Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/uvao20

Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy:

Extending the Integrated Legal
Socialization Model
a a a
Ellen S. Cohn , Rick J. Trinkner , Cesar J. Rebellon , Karen T.
a a
Van Gundy & Lindsey M. Cole
a
University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA

Version of record first published: 10 Oct 2012.

To cite this article: Ellen S. Cohn, Rick J. Trinkner, Cesar J. Rebellon, Karen T. Van Gundy & Lindsey
M. Cole (2012): Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy: Extending the Integrated Legal Socialization Model,
Victims & Offenders, 7:4, 385-406

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15564886.2012.713902

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation
that the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any
instructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primary
sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,
demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or
indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.
 Victims and Offenders, 7:385–406, 2012
Copyright © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC
ISSN: 1556-4886 print/1556-4991 online
DOI: 10.1080/15564886.2012.713902

Legal Attitudes and

Legitimacy: Extending
the Integrated Legal
Socialization Model
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

Ellen S. Cohn, Rick J. Trinkner, Cesar J. Rebellon,

Karen T. Van Gundy, and Lindsey M. Cole
University of New Hampshire, Durham, New Hampshire, USA
Abstract: Legal socialization is the process by which individuals acquire beliefs about
rules and rule-violation by internalizing codified, normative rules within society. In the
integrated legal socialization model, legal attitudes are mediators between legal/moral
reasoning and rule-violating behavior (RVB; Cohn, Bucolo, Rebellon, & Van Gundy,
2010). In the alternative legal socialization model, legitimacy of authority is a predic-
tor of RVB (Piquero, Fagan, Mulvey, Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005). In the current study,
we attempted to replicate Cohn et al.’s (2010) integrated model. A path model revealed
that legal attitudes (normative status) mediated the relationship between legal rea-
soning and RVB in partial support of the integrated model. We then expanded the
theoretical model by arguing that police and parental legitimacy mediated between
moral/legal reasoning and normative status (approval of RVB). We used longitudinal
data from middle school and high school students to test our expanded theoretical
model. Our final path analysis revealed partial support for our expanded model by
demonstrating that legal (but not moral) reasoning was associated with both parental
and police legitimacy—which were associated with RVB via the mediating influence of
legal reasoning (normative status). We conclude by discussing the policy implications of
the expanded legal socialization model as well as our suggestions for future research.

This research was facilitated by two grants from the National Science Foundation
(SES0550145 and SES1026803). We thank numerous individuals for assistance in
preparing this research. The following individuals read drafts of this paper: Kevin
Anderson, Laura Jarvis, and Stacy Jeleniewski. The following graduate assistants
helped coordinate the data collection, entry, and preparation: Jessie French and Donald
Bucolo. The following students helped with the data collection and/or data entry:
Melissa Curtin, Danielle DiFranco, Steven Falk, Hanah Fleahman, Jason Frazier,
Jessie French, Jaime Gallagher, Robyn Hackler, Marissa Hill, Kevin Hornberger,
Jessica Lucier, Edward MacDonald, Kate McClain, Devon Mahler, Brianna Murdock,
Michele Poirier, Kaitlin Rezendez, Meredith Richards, Lauren Scott, and Kristin
Williams.
Address correspondence to Ellen S. Cohn, Department of Psychology, University of New
Hampshire, 10 Library Way, Durham, NH 03824. E-mail: ellen.cohn@unh.edu

385
 386 E. S. Cohn et al.

Keywords: attitudes, legitimacy, adolescents, rule-violating behavior, moral reasoning,

legal reasoning

Imagine that two adolescents broke into a house and stole valuable jewelry,
leading to an outcry among the public that something must be wrong in a
community whose adolescents believed it acceptable to steal. Asked by the pub-
lic why adolescents would violate community norms, researchers would have
mixed explanations. Some would argue that the violation resulted from poor
legal/moral reasoning, from the adolescents’ approval of rule-violating behav-
ior (RVB), and from the adolescents’ disapproval of rules against such behavior
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

(Cohn, Bucolo, Rebellon, & Van Gundy, 2010; Cohn & White, 1990; Levine,
1979; Levine & Tapp, 1977). Others would argue that the violation reflected a
lack of trust in, and respect of, such authorities as the police (Fagan & Piquero,
2007; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero, Fagan, Mulvey, Steinberg, & Odgers, 2005;
Tyler, 2006a) or parents (Darling, Cumsille, & Martinez, 2007, 2008; Trinkner,
Cohn, Rebellon, & Van Gundy, 2012). The present paper presents and tests an
integrated model of the above two approaches.

LEGAL SOCIALIZATION
Legal socialization refers to the cognitive-developmental process by which peo-
ple develop their understanding of laws and rules within society as well as an
understanding of the social institutions that create and enforce laws and rules
(Cohn & White, 1990; Levine, 1979; Levine & Tapp, 1977; Tapp & Kohlberg,
1971). Research concerning legal socialization builds systematically on clas-
sic theory concerning cognitive development (Piaget, 1932/1965) generally,
and moral reasoning (Kohlberg, 1963/2008) in particular. Moral reasoning is
defined as one’s ability to make judgments about the rightness and wrongness
of behaviors in complex social situations (Blasi, 1980). Past research indi-
cates that one’s moral reasoning is negatively related to engagement in RVB
(Hains & Miller, 1980; Stams et al., 2006), with recent work revealing that this
relationship applies across gender (Palmer & Hollin, 2001) and is stable over
time during late adolescence (Raaijmakers, Engels, & Van Hoof, 2005).
Legal reasoning is similar to moral reasoning, but is more restrictive in
that it only applies specifically to laws established by the legal institutions of
society—whereas moral reasoning applies to decisions made about any norms,
values, or rules. In this regard, one’s legal reasoning ability provides a frame-
work for defining, interpreting, and making decisions about laws, rights, and
behavior (Levine & Tapp, 1977; Tapp & Levine, 1974). Although there are
relatively few studies examining the relationship between legal reasoning and
RVB, those studies that exist have tended to find a negative relation that par-
allels the findings of research concerning moral reasoning (e.g., Cohn & White,
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 387

1990). For example, Finckenauer (1995) found that delinquent youth in Russia
had a lower legal reasoning capacity than nondelinquent counterparts, while
Grant (2006) found that legal reasoning was a negative predictor of RVB in a
large sample of Mexican adolescents.

Integrated Model of Legal Socialization

Although researchers had identified both moral and legal reasoning as
important variables in legal socialization, they were not combined into a sin-
gle theoretical model until Cohn et al. (2010) proposed an integrated model of
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

legal socialization. Beyond building on past research by including both moral

and legal reasoning as predictors of RVB, this model further suggested that the
influence of moral/legal reasoning on RVB is mediated by individuals’ legal
attitudes. In particular, the integrated model emphasizes two attitudes: nor-
mative status and enforcement status (Cohn & White, 1990). Normative status
is defined as the degree to which an individual approves of engaging in RVB,
while enforcement status refers to one’s approval of punishing individuals who
engage in RVB.
In their empirical test of the integrated model, Cohn et al. (2010)
found that moral reasoning decreased normative status and simultane-
ously increased enforcement status. Normative status, in turn, predicted
higher engagement in RVB; enforcement status predicted lower engagement.
Surprisingly, they found that legal reasoning had no influence on either nor-
mative or enforcement status, despite past research indicating that legal
reasoning is related to the two statuses in the same way as moral reason-
ing (Cohn & White, 1990). It is important to note that in their integrated
model both moral and legal reasoning maintained direct links to RVB even
after including the mediators. This suggests that either the reasoning vari-
ables actually do have a direct influence on rule-violation or that they exert
their influence via additional mediators not included in the integrated model.
While the integrated model of legal socialization was an important contri-
bution to legal socialization theory and literature, it suffered from a number of
limitations that remain to be addressed (Cohn et al., 2010). First, as discussed
above, Cohn et al. (2010) found no relationship between legal reasoning and
normative or enforcement status, although Cohn and White (1990) had shown
that legal reasoning predicted both legal attitudes. Cohn et al. (2010) proposed
that this discrepancy may have resulted from a measurement issue. In partic-
ular, their study used a cognitive measure of legal reasoning that tapped legal
reasoning as an abstract construct, while their measure of moral reasoning
was a more concrete measure that assessed morality based on how individuals
reported they would behave in various situations. Cohn et al. (2010) sug-
gested that their behavior-based measure of moral reasoning may have had
stronger influences on the legal attitudes than the cognitive-based measure
 388 E. S. Cohn et al.

of legal reasoning because a behavior-based measure may be more directly

related to legal attitudes about specific RVB. In order to address this concern,
they proposed that researchers should examine the integrated model using
behavior-based measures of both moral and legal reasoning.
In addition to the measurement problem discussed previously, the inte-
grated model of legal socialization arguably remains theoretically incomplete.
Fagan and his associates (Fagan & Piquero, 2007; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero
et al., 2005), for example, have suggested that legal socialization scholars (e.g.,
Cohn & White, 1990) have ignored the role of authority legitimacy. Indeed,
recent research has shown that situational factors represent an important
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

component of the legal socialization process (Fagan & Piquero, 2007; Fagan &
Tyler, 2005; Piquero et al., 2005). In particular, individuals’ perceptions of
the legitimacy of authorities influences their engagement in RVB. For exam-
ple, Fagan and Tyler (2005) found that decreases in the perceptions of police
as legitimate authorities were associated with increases in rule-violation.
Moreover, lower police legitimacy was associated with increased RVB over time
(Fagan & Piquero, 2007; Piquero et al., 2005). The present paper thus incorpo-
rates legitimacy of authority into an expanded version of Cohn et al.’s (2010)
integrated legal socialization model.

Legitimacy of Authority
Legitimacy of authority refers to the belief that authorities, institutions,
and social arrangements are appropriate, proper, and just (Tyler, 2006b). When
a person is viewed as a legitimate authority, individuals will trust in that per-
son and feel an obligation to obey her rules (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). It is
important to note that this obligation is not contingent on the authority’s
instrumental control over rewards and punishment, but rather is a voluntary
decision made by an individual to defer to the directives of that authority to
maintain a social norm (Tyler, 2006b).

Police Legitimacy
Unsurprisingly, much of the research by legal scholars on legitimacy (Lee,
Steinberg, Piquero, & Knight, 2011; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003; Tyler, 2006a;
Tyler, Schulhofer, & Huq, 2010) has focused on legal authorities, such as police.
A small number of researchers have focused specifically on how police legiti-
macy influences RVB (Fagan & Piquero, 2007; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero
et al., 2005; Trinkner, 2012). Similar to the findings discussed above, they
found that when individuals perceived the police as legitimate, they were less
likely to engage in RVB. For example, Tyler and Huo (2002) found that indi-
viduals were more likely to comply with laws enforced by the police if they
believed that the police were legitimate authority figures. These findings have
been replicated in adolescents as well. Fagan and colleagues (Fagan & Piquero,
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 389

2007; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero et al., 2005) found that police legitimacy
was a negative predictor of rule-violation in both community and incarcerated
samples of adolescents. Trinkner (2012) found that police legitimacy was a
negative predictor of rule-violation in a community sample of adolescents.

Parental Legitimacy
Developmental psychologists have examined the role of parental authority
in influencing various adolescent outcomes extensively (Darling & Steinberg,
1993; Steinberg & Morris, 2001). Much of this research has tended to focus
on where and when adolescents will view parental authority as legitimate
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

(e.g., Dubin & Dubin, 1963; Laupa, 1991; Laupa & Turiel, 1993). This work
has shown that adolescents’ perception of parental legitimacy is domain spe-
cific (Milinitsky-Sapiro, Turiel, & Nucci, 2006; Smetana & Daddis, 2002).
In other words, the decision to give parents legitimate authority is depen-
dent upon the particular issue in question. For example, Tisak (1986) found
that adolescents were more likely to perceive parental rules pertaining to
stealing as more legitimate than rules concerning household chores or friend-
ships. More recently, Darling, Cumsille, and Peña-Alampay (2005) found that
most adolescents perceived parents as legitimate within moral domains (e.g.,
doing physical or psychological harm); however, there was greater variabil-
ity in legitimacy perceptions within personal domains (e.g., choice of friends
or use of free time). Furthermore, similar to research on legal authorities,
higher parental legitimacy is associated with less rule-violation both cross-
sectionally (Darling, Cumsille, & Martínez, 2007) and longitudinally (Darling,
Cumsille, & Martínez, 2008). For example, Trinkner, Cohn, Rebellon, & Van
Gundy (2012) found that adolescents who perceived their parents as legitimate
actually decreased their delinquent behavior over a 12-month period.

THE PRESENT STUDY

Several moral reasoning theorists have suggested a relationship between
moral judgment and authority (Damon, 1988; Laupa, Turiel, & Cowan, 1995;
Turiel, 1983) and preliminary research (Cohn & White, 1990) suggests empir-
ical support for this notion. Our revision of Cohn et al.’s (2010) integrated
model therefore includes police and parental legitimacy as mediators between
moral/legal reasoning and legal attitudes (normative status). In addition, how-
ever, our revised model hypothesizes that one’s trust of authorities affects one’s
approval of RVB such that the more one trusts authorities, the less likely one
is to approve of RVB. Finally, our revised model concludes by suggesting that
approval of RVB is directly related to a lower likelihood of engaging in RVB.
Below, we first attempt to replicate a portion of Cohn et al.’s (2010) integrated
model. We then provide an empirical test of our revision to the integrated
model.
 390 E. S. Cohn et al.

METHOD

Participants
Individuals in the present study are participants in the New Hampshire
Youth Study (NHYS; see Cohn et al., 2010), an ongoing longitudinal study of
adolescent RVB in a cohort of middle school and high school students from
four urban communities in New Hampshire. Cohn et al. (2010) used data from
the second (spring 2007), third (fall 2007), and fourth (spring 2008) phases of
the NHYS. The present paper utilized data from the fifth (fall 2008), seventh
(fall 2010), and eighth (fall 2011) phases of the NHYS. For the purposes of the
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

current study, the measurement occasions will be referred to as Time 1 (T1),

Time 2 (T2), and Time 3 (T3), respectively. At the time of the fall 2008 (T1) col-
lection, participants were in the eighth and eleventh grades. After eliminating
students with missing or incomplete data, a total of 348 students completed
surveys at all three collection sessions. Demographics were similar for both
the middle school and high school cohorts. The majority of participants were
women (n = 228, 65.5%) and Caucasian (n = 290, 83.3%). In addition, 10 (2.9%)
reported they were African American, 8 (2.3%) Hispanic American, 12 (3.4%)
Asian American, 11 (3.2%) multiracial, and 12 (3.4%) not specifying. Students’
average age was 14.28 (SD = 1.51) in the fall of 2008.

Measures

Demographics
In addition to reporting their age, sex, and race/ethnicity, participants also
reported how much money they felt their family had (1 = very little money
available, 5 = lots of money available), how satisfied they were with their
family’s financial situation (1 = not very satisfied, 5 = very satisfied), and
whether they were ever hungry because their family could not afford food (1 =
not true at all, 5 = very true). This last item was reverse coded. Participants
also reported both of their parents’ educational backgrounds (1 = less than
high school, 6 = professional/graduate degree). The responses to these five
items were then standardized into z-scores and averaged to create a measure
of socioeconomic status (SES) with higher scores indicating a higher SES (M =
0.00, SD = .67, α = .83). Finally, participants reported their average grades in
school at T1 (1 = mostly As, 9 = mostly Fs). Responses were recoded so that
higher scores reflected higher average grades (M = 7.75, SD = 1.53).

Moral Reasoning
To measure participants’ moral reasoning, we included a 7-item subscale
of the Visions of Morality Scale (Shelton & McAdams, 1990) at T1, used
previously by Cohn et al. (2010). This scale had participants rate the likelihood
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 391

they would engage in prosocial behavior (e.g., donate money found on the street
to a local charity). Respondents rated the likelihood for each item on a 7-point
Likert scale (1 = I definitely would not do, 7 = I definitely would do). Items
were averaged, with higher scores indicating more advanced moral reasoning
(M = 4.41, SD = 1.18, α = .83).

Legal Reasoning
To create a comparable measure to the moral reasoning measure with a
similar response method, we developed a 7-item, behavior-based measure of
legal reasoning that was included at T1. Participants rated the likelihood that
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

they would uphold a formal, codified rule concerning illegal behavior in seven
situations (e.g., report someone after they witnessed the individual shoplift-
ing). Respondents rated the likelihood for each item on a 7-point Likert scale
(1 = I definitely would not do, 7 = I definitely would do). To ensure that all
items were tapping the same construct, we conducted a principal components
factor analysis with varimax rotation. This analysis provided a single compo-
nent solution (Eigenvalue = 3.14) accounting for 44.78% of the variance. All
items loaded (Factor loadings = .59–.73) on this single factor, indicating that
they were tapping the same construct. Responses were averaged across items,
with higher scores indicating more advanced legal reasoning (M = 5.33, SD =
1.08, α = .79).

Police Legitimacy
To measure participants’ perceptions of the police as legitimate authority
figures we included 10 items at T2 used previously by Sunshine and Tyler
(2003). These items reflected both trust in the police (e.g., “The police can be
trusted to make decisions that are right for the people in your neighborhood”)
and the obligation to obey them (e.g., “You should do what the police tell you
to do, even when you disagree with their decisions”). Respondents rated their
agreement with each item on a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree,
4 = strongly agree). All items were averaged, with higher scores indicating a
greater perception of police legitimacy (M = 2.96, SD = .51, α = .83).

Parent Legitimacy
To measure participants’ perceptions of their parents as legitimate author-
ity figures, we reworded the 10 police legitimacy items to reflect parental
authority (following the procedures in Trinkner et al., 2012) and included them
at T2. Items reflected trust in parents (e.g., “Your parents can be trusted to
make decisions that are right for you”) and the obligation to obey them (e.g.,
“You should do what your parents tell you to do, even when you disagree
with their decisions”). Respondents rated their agreement with each item on
a 4-point Likert scale (1 = strongly disagree, 4 = strongly agree). All items
 392 E. S. Cohn et al.

were averaged, with higher scores indicating a greater perception of police

legitimacy (M = 2.90, SD = .55, α = .85).

Normative Status
To assess participants’ approval of RVB, we included Cohn and White’s
(1990) normative status measure at T2. Participants were asked to rate their
approval of 22 specific RVBs (e.g., “How much do you approve of getting into
a fight at school?”). Approval of each behavior was rated on a 4-point Likert
scale (0 = strongly disapprove, 3 = strongly approve). Items were averaged,
with higher scores indicating greater approval of RVB (M = 1.14, SD = .51,
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

α = .97).

RVB
To measure participants’ engagement in RVB, the Delinquency Component
of the National Youth Longitudinal Survey (Wolpin, 1983) was included at
T3. This measure asked participants to report how many times they have
engaged in 22 specific behaviors in three general areas (in the past six months):
property offenses (e.g., “taken something from a store without paying for it”),
violent offenses (e.g., “attacked someone with the idea of seriously hurting or
killing them”), and substance use (e.g., “had an alcoholic drink”). Following
previous research (Trinkner et al., 2012) participant responses to each item
were recoded into “yes” (1) and “no” (0) and then summed across the 22 behav-
iors. This procedure has long been recommended for delinquency and crime
research (Hindelang, Hirschi, & Weis, 1981) because it produces a more sen-
sitive measure of overall offending than using the raw frequencies (Bendixen,
Endresen, & Olweus, 2003). Higher scores indicated more engagement in a
greater variety of delinquent behaviors (M = 1.82, SD = 2.74, α = .84).

Procedure
All three data collection sessions in the current study had similar proce-
dures. Students completed questionnaires in mass testing sessions or online.
All measures and procedures were reviewed and approved by the University
Institutional Review Board. The researchers scheduled times to come to each
school to administer the questionnaire in various locations around the school
(e.g., study halls, auditoriums, school libraries, and cafeterias). Students were
placed one seat apart from each other (when possible) to ensure confidential-
ity and given verbal instruction on how to complete the questionnaire. They
were told not to place any identifying information on the questionnaire and
were assured that their responses would be kept confidential. The question-
naire took approximately 35 minutes to complete and was divided into two
sections. To reduce fatigue, students were given a short break and a fruit snack
after completing the first section. After completing the entire questionnaire,
students signed in with the researchers. At the beginning of the NHYS study,
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 393

students were assigned arbitrary ID numbers to allow researchers to match

students’ responses in future phases. At each collection session, students were
asked for their names as they turned in their surveys. A member of the
research team then wrote their corresponding ID number on their surveys.
Finally, respondents received a $10 (T1 and T2) or $20 (T3) gift certificate to
a national bookstore, were thanked for their time, and were dismissed back to
their regularly scheduled class.
During T2 and T3 data collections, the questionnaire was also offered in
an online version to accommodate participants who had graduated from their
school, could not take the paper version at their respective school, or preferred
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

to complete the questionnaire online. The online version was identical to the
paper-and-pencil version in all respects. Those students who could not com-
plete the survey at their school were contacted by mail, telephone, or e-mail,
and given their ID number and the URL to the online questionnaire. After com-
pleting the questionnaire, they were directed to a second (unrelated) website
where they provided their mailing address. Upon completion, the $10 (T2) or
$20 (T3) gift certificate was mailed to them.

Analytic Strategy
We ran two sets of analyses. The goal of the first set was to assess whether
a portion of the integrated model of legal socialization presented by Cohn et al.
(2010) could be replicated. Because the NHYS uses a rotated schedule of mea-
surements, we were unable to include enforcement status in this analysis, as
it was not measured at T2. Instead, we examined the degree to which nor-
mative status mediated the relations between moral and legal reasoning and
RVB, net of control variables (age, sex, SES, and average grades). The second
set of analyses expanded on Cohn et al.’s (2010) work by including parental
and police legitimacy as mediators between the two reasoning variables and
normative status.
Structural equation modeling (SEM) was used across all analyses using
AMOS software (Arbuckle, 2010). The measure of RVB used in the present
study was a count variable (i.e., nonnegative integer) that was positively
skewed (skew = 2.51). As a result, we decided not to use typical maximum-
likelihood estimation as this estimation method assumes multivariate normal-
ity. Instead, following past research (Rebellon & Waldman, 2003; Trinkner
et al., 2012), both models were estimated using the weighted-least-squares
algorithm (Browne, 1984), which assumes the normality of the latent processes
underlying ordinal indicators. In order to use this estimation method, a cate-
gorical variable was created for RVB at both T1 and T3 where any individuals
who reported engaging in 10 or more behaviors were collapsed into a single
category (2.4% of the sample at both T1 and T3 reported engaging in more
than 10 behaviors). All other responses were treated as their own category
(i.e., 0 behaviors, 1 behavior, 2 behaviors, etc.).
 394 E. S. Cohn et al.

RESULTS

Replicating Cohn et al. (2010)

As discussed above, our first goal was to replicate the findings from Cohn
et al. (2010). To this end, the first set of analyses examined the degree to which
normative status mediated the relationship between moral and legal reason-
ing and RVB, while controlling for age, sex, SES, and average grades. The
first model we tested included legal reasoning, moral reasoning, age, sex, aver-
age grades, and SES at T1 as exogenous predictors of RVB at T3. In addition,
normative status (T2) was included as a mediator between the two reason-
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

ing variables and RVB. Correlations among predictors were only estimated if
those predictors were correlated at the bivariate level.1 The model produced
a marginal fit to the data (χ 2 (11) = 39.27, p < .001, AGFI = .94, CFI =
.88, RMSEA = .09). Examination of modification indices suggested that model
fit could be improved by including a path from age to normative status. The
resulting model that included this path fit the data well (χ 2 (10) = 12.82, n.s.,
AGFI = .98, CFI = .88, RMSEA = .03).
Parameter estimates, standard errors, and fit indices for this final model
are presented in Table 1. Legal reasoning (β = −.19, p < .01) and age (β = .23,
p < .001) were significantly associated with normative status, while moral rea-
soning (β = .11, n.s.) had no association. Higher legal reasoning was associated

Table 1: Parameter estimates, standard errors, and fit indices

for SEM model replicating Cohn et al. (2010).

Paths β b S.E.

Predicting Normative Status(T2)

Legal reasoning(T1) −.19∗∗ −.09 .03
Moral reasoning(T1) .11 .04 .02
Age(T1) .23∗∗∗ .07 .01
Predicting RVB(T3)
Legal reasoning(T1) −.21∗ −.46 .18
Moral reasoning(T1) .03 .05 .14
Age(T1) .02 .03 .08
Sex(T1) .13∗ .65 .29
Average grades(T1) −.08 −.19 .16
SES(T1) −.03 −.12 .23
Normative status(T2) .16∗∗ .79 .30
N 348
χ 2 (df ) 12.82(10)
CFI .99
AGFI .98
RMSEA .03
∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001

Note: SES = Socioeconomic status; RVB = RVB; (T1) = fall 2008; (T2) =
fall 2010; (T3) = fall 2011.
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 395

Legal
Reasoning(T1) –.21***

–.19** .16**
Normative
RVB(T3)
Status(T2)
.11

Moral
.03
Reasoning(T1)
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

2
(10) = 12.82, n.s.; AGFI = .98; CFI = .99; RMSEA = .03
*
p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Figure 1: Traditional legal socialization model predicting RVB.

Note: Estimates were standardized with dotted lines indicating nonsignificant paths. Error
terms, covariances, and control variables withheld to ease presentation. RVB = RVB; (T1) =
fall 2008; (T2) = fall 2010; (T3) = fall 2011.

with a lower approval of engaging in RVB. The older participants were, the
more likely they were to approve of engaging in RVB. In terms of predicting
engagement in RVB at T3, legal reasoning (β = −.21, p < .05), sex (β = .13,
p < .05), and normative status (β = .16, p < .01) were all significantly associ-
ated with RVB. Higher legal reasoning was associated with less engagement
in RVB. In addition, male participants were more likely to report engaging
in RVB than female participants. Finally, the more participants approved of
engaging in RVB, the more likely they were to report engaging in RVB.
A graphical representation of the final model is presented in Figure 1.
In order to ease presentation the control variables, covariances and error terms
are omitted from the figure. As can be seen, the results partially replicated the
findings from Cohn et al. (2010). Legal reasoning had both a direct effect on
RVB and an indirect effect via normative status. In the latter case, partici-
pants’ level of legal reasoning at T1 negatively influenced their approval of
RVB at T2, which in turn had a positive influence on RVB engagement at T3.
However, contrary to expectations, moral reasoning had neither a direct effect
on RVB nor an indirect effect through normative status.

Extending Cohn et al. (2010)

The next goal in our analyses was to extend the findings from Cohn et al.
(2010) by including police and parent legitimacy as endogenous mediators
between the two reasoning variables and normative status. In this regard, all
paths and correlations estimated in the final model above were retained in
this analysis. In addition, the correlation between the two residuals associated
 396 E. S. Cohn et al.

with police and parent legitimacy was estimated to account for the bivariate
correlation between the two legitimacies (r = .37, p < .001). Finally, direct
paths from the legitimacy variables to RVB were added. The fit of this model
to the data was unacceptable (χ 2 (20) = 57.97, p < .001, AGFI = .94, CFI =
.88, RMSEA = .07). Examination of modification indices suggested that model
fit could be improved by including paths from sex and average grades to police
legitimacy. This model provided a better fit (χ 2 (18) = 29.33, p < .01, AGFI =
.96, CFI = .95, RMSEA = .05), but one still slightly below acceptable levels.
Modification indices from this model suggested a path from age to police legit-
imacy was needed. After including this path, the final model fit the data well
(χ 2 (17) = 28.23, p < .05, AGFI = .97, CFI = .97, RMSEA = .04).
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

Table 2 presents the parameter estimates, standard errors, and fit indices
for the final model. Age (β = −.11, p < .01) and sex (β = −.16, p < .001) were

Table 2: Parameter estimates, standard errors, and fit indices for SEM
model extending Cohn et al. (2010).

Paths β b S.E.

Predicting Police Legitimacy(T2)

Legal reasoning(T1) .34∗∗∗ .16 .03
Moral reasoning(T1) −.09 −.04 .03
Age(T1) −.11∗∗ −.04 .01
Sex(T1) −.16∗∗∗ −.16 .05
Average grades(T1) .14∗∗ .07 .02
Predicting Parental Legitimacy(T2)
Legal reasoning(T1) .25∗∗∗ .12 .03
Moral reasoning(T1) −.12 −.06 .03
Predicting Normative Status(T2)
Age(T1) .20∗∗∗ .07 .01
Police legitimacy(T2) −.17∗∗ −.16 .05
Parental legitimacy(T2) −.16∗∗ −.15 .05
Predicting RVB(T3)
Legal reasoning(T1) −.13 −.29 .20
Moral reasoning(T1) .02 .03 .14
Age(T1) −.01 −.01 .08
Sex(T1) .12∗ .59 .27
Average grades(T1) −.08 −.19 .17
SES(T1) .02 .09 .22
Police legitimacy(T2) −.12 −.54 .36
Parental legitimacy(T2) −.08 −.33 .29
Normative status(T2) .16∗∗ .77 .29
N 348
χ 2 (df ) 28.23(17)∗
CFI .97
AGFI .97
RMSEA .04
∗ p < .05; ∗∗ p < .01; ∗∗∗ p < .001

Note: SES = Socioeconomic status; RVB = RVB; (T1) = fall 2008; (T2) = fall 2010;
(T3) = fall 2011.
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 397

both negatively associated with police legitimacy, while average grades (β =

.14, p < .01) were positively associated. The older participants were, the less
likely they were to perceive the police as legitimate authorities. Male partic-
ipants were less likely to perceive the police as legitimate authorities than
female participants. Participants who reported higher grades were also more
likely to perceive the police as legitimate. In addition, legal reasoning (β =
.34, p < .001) significantly predicted police legitimacy and moral reasoning
(β = −.09, n.s.) did not significantly predict police legitimacy. The higher one’s
legal reasoning, the higher were perceptions that the police were legitimate.
In terms of parental legitimacy, legal reasoning (β = .25, p < .001) was signif-
icantly associated—but moral reasoning (β = −.12, n.s.) was not significantly
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

associated—with parental legitimacy. Similar to police legitimacy, the higher

one’s legal reasoning, the higher were perceptions that parents were legitimate
authority figures. Both police legitimacy (β = −.17, p < .01) and parental legit-
imacy (β = −.16, p < .01) were significant predictors of normative status as
well as age (β = .20, p < .001). The higher participants’ perceptions of both the
police and parents as legitimate authorities, the less likely participants were to
approve of engaging in RVB; the older participants were, the more likely they
were to approve of RVB engagement. Finally, only sex (β = .12, p < .05) and
normative status (β = .16, p < .01) were significant predictors of RVB at T3.
Male participants were more likely to report engaging in RVB than female par-
ticipants. The more participants approved of engaging in RVB, the more likely
they were to report engaging in RVB.
A graphical representation of the final model is presented in Figure 2.
As done previously, only the relations among the primary variables of inter-
est are shown to ease presentation. The results support extending the findings
of Cohn et al. (2010). As with the previous model above, moral reasoning was
unimportant as it did not have an influence on any of the variables shown.
Instead, legal reasoning was the more important factor because it had a pos-
itive effect on perceptions of both police and parental legitimacy. Police and
parental legitimacy, in turn, did not directly influence engagement in RVB,
but rather had an indirect effect by influencing the degree to which individ-
uals approve of engaging in RVB. Taken together, the results indicated that
individuals’ legal reasoning positively influences how they perceive authority
figures, which negatively influences their approval of engaging in RVB. Finally,
the approval of RVB directly affects actual engagement in RVB.

DISCUSSION
The goals of the present study were to replicate a portion of the integrated
model of legal socialization (Cohn et al., 2010) and to extend this model fur-
ther by including individuals’ perceptions of police and parental legitimacy.
 398 E. S. Cohn et al.

Police
Legitimacy(T2)
.34***
–.12
Legal .09
Reasoning(T1) –.13

–.17**
Normative .16**
RVB(T3)
Status(T2)

–.16**
.02
Moral
Reasoning(T1)
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

.25*** –.08

–.12 Parental
Legitimacy(T2)

2
(17) = 28.23, p < .05; AGFI = .97; CFI = .97; RMSEA = .04
*
p < .05; ** p < .01; *** p < .001

Figure 2: Extended legal socialization model including parental and police legitimacy as
mediators in predicting RVB.
Note: Estimates were standardized with dotted lines indicating non significant paths. Error
terms, covariances, and control variables withheld to ease presentation. RVB = Rule-violating
behavior; (T1) = fall 2008; (T2) = fall 2010; (T3) = fall 2011.

In terms of the former, we partially replicated the model in that legal attitudes
(i.e., normative status) mediated the relationship between reasoning and RVB.
However, unlike Cohn et al. (2010)—which found that moral reasoning and not
legal reasoning predicted normative status—the present study found the oppo-
site pattern of results; legal reasoning predicted normative status instead of
moral reasoning. In terms of the second goal, the results indicated that percep-
tions of parental and police legitimacy are an important component of the legal
socialization process which needs to be included in the integrated model. The
results showed that legitimacy perceptions mediated the relationship between
legal reasoning and normative status, whereby legal reasoning influenced nor-
mative status via its positive relations with police and parental legitimacy.
Both legitimacies were then negatively related to normative status, which was
a positive predictor of engagement in RVB.
The lack of association between moral reasoning and normative status was
particularly unexpected in the current study given that Cohn et al. (2010)
found moral reasoning had stronger associations with normative status than
legal reasoning. We believe the contrary pattern of results found here may
be due to differences in the measurement of legal reasoning between the
present paper and Cohn et al. (2010). As discussed previously, Cohn et al.
(2010) used a cognitive measure of legal reasoning and a more behavior-
based measure of moral reasoning. As they noted, the differences between
moral and legal reasoning within their results may have been due to this
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 399

discrepancy in measurement. However, the present study did not suffer from
this limitation because it included behavior-based measures of both moral and
legal reasoning—where moral reasoning assessed the likelihood of engaging
in prosocial behavior and legal reasoning assessed the likelihood of engag-
ing in behavior that coincided with formal, codified rules in society. In using
more congruent measures, the present study supports past arguments that
one’s legal reasoning ability is a major legal socialization factor (Levine, 1979;
Levine & Tapp, 1977; Tapp & Kohlberg, 1971), thus suggesting that Cohn
et al. (2010) may have overestimated the importance of moral reasoning in
the integrated model.
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

Of equally critical importance, the current results also provided support

for including perceptions of authority legitimacy in the integrated model of
legal socialization (Cohn et al., 2010). Previous researchers found that the per-
ception of police legitimacy was an important legal socialization variable that
influenced engagement in RVB (Fagan & Piquero, 2007; Fagan & Tyler, 2005).
The findings here support and expand this argument in two ways. First, while
Fagan and colleagues only examined the role of police legitimacy, early legal
socialization scholars (Levine & Tapp, 1977; Tapp, 1976) emphasized that indi-
viduals acquire their notions about rules and rule-violation from a number
of nonlegal sources (e.g., parents, teachers, community leaders). The present
results supported this argument by showing that individual perceptions of
both legal (i.e., the police) and nonlegal (i.e., parents) authority legitimacy were
important predictors of RVB. Second, the findings presented here showed that
perceptions of legitimacy influenced engagement in RVB by affecting individ-
uals’ legal attitudes, specifically the degree to which individuals approved of
RVB (i.e., normative status). In light of these two findings, further research
is needed to include nonlegal authorities and contexts within future legal
socialization research.
In addition, the present results also indicate that individuals’ perceptions
of legitimacy are dependent on their level of legal reasoning. Unsurprisingly,
past researchers examining the antecedents of both police legitimacy (e.g.,
Fagan & Piquero, 2007; Sunshine & Tyler, 2003) and parental legitimacy (e.g.,
Darling et al., 2008; Smetana & Daddis, 2002) have primarily focused on how
interactions with those authorities influence legitimacy. While such research
is obviously warranted, there have been relatively few studies examining how
personal attributes shape legitimacy perceptions. To our knowledge, this is the
first study to show that legal reasoning influences the degree to which indi-
viduals perceive authorities as legitimate. In doing so, this study indicates
that legal reasoning is not only important in the legal socialization process
because it influences people’s legal attitudes (e.g., normative status), but that
it is also important because it influences how people perceive authority fig-
ures, such as parents and police officers. Until recently, the role of authorities
in legal socialization has been largely ignored. Given past research showing
 400 E. S. Cohn et al.

that both police (Fagan & Piquero, 2007; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero et al.,
2005; Trinkner, 2012) and parents (Darling et al., 2007, 2008; Hoeve et al.,
2009; Trinkner et al., 2012) influence whether individuals engage in RVB,
future legal socialization researchers should continue to explore both the ways
in which legitimacy perceptions influence RVB, as well as what creates these
perceptions of legitimacy—whether it be individual-level attributes (e.g., legal
reasoning), situation-specific variables (e.g., interactions with authority), or
both.

Policy Implications
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

Since the Enlightenment of the 18th century, deterrence via punishment

has played a preeminent role in public policy surrounding the control of crimi-
nal and delinquent behavior. This role has been challenged during such periods
as the deinstitutionalization movement of the 1960s, but has surged during
such periods as the get-tough movement during the peak in juvenile violence
that characterized the early 1990s. Implicit in this waxing and waning has
been the reification of two seemingly alternative schools of thought concern-
ing the best means by which to control undesirable juvenile behavior. First, a
“get-tough” school comprised largely of practitioners would appear to embrace
greater formal punishment of juveniles in an effort to deter their offending
more effectively. Members of this school may point to the consistent nega-
tive association between an individual’s perceived certainty of being caught
or sanctioned for rule violations and his behavioral involvement in such viola-
tions (e.g., Piquero & Pogarsky, 2002). Second, a “hands-off” school comprised
largely of academics would appear to believe that juvenile interaction with
authority figures may be of limited utility as a deterrent because juveniles
have passed the age at which they are amenable to the influence of author-
ity figures (e.g., Gottfredson & Hirschi, 1990) or because peers hold so much
more sway over adolescents than do adult authority figures (e.g., Akers, 2009).
Members of this school may point to evidence that punishment can be asso-
ciated with no change in perceived certainty (Pogarsky, Kim, & Paternoster,
2005) and with an increase in offending (Pogarsky & Piquero, 2003).
The present research offers what we believe to be a promising middle
ground between the two schools, suggesting that adolescents do think to vary-
ing degrees about the behaviors in which they engage (i.e., Paternoster &
Pogarsky, 2009), but that the appropriate question to ask about the role of
authority figures is not so much whether they matter, but how they matter.
In particular, both formal (i.e., police) and informal (i.e., parental) authority
figures do matter, but they matter for reasons other than the potential pun-
ishment they may impose. Rather, our legal socialization model suggests that
both police and parents hold sway over adolescent behavior insofar as ado-
lescents perceive them to be legitimate authorities who, by extension, embody
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 401

legitimate normative belief systems. Indeed, our empirical findings yield sup-
port for the notion that both parental and police legitimacy are significantly
and independently associated with lower adolescent approval of RVB which,
in turn, is significantly associated with involvement in fewer forms of rule-
violation. Of equally critical importance, our results yield further evidence
that an adolescent’s level of legal reasoning is associated with both forms of
perceived legitimacy and that these associations exist independent of an ado-
lescent’s age or educational achievement. In light of these results, it may be
that advocates of the former position would do well to move beyond punish-
ment while advocates of the latter position pay due attention to the role that
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

both formal and informal authority figures may play in promoting or inhibiting
adolescent rule-violation.

Limitations and Future Research Directions

While this study makes significant contributions to the understanding
of the legal socialization process, it does suffer from some limitations. First,
the measure of RVB used here was a self-report measure, which may not
have been an accurate representation of students’ actual engagement in RVB.
This limitation was addressed to some extent because we used a measure
that assessed variety of RVB engagement rather than frequency of RVB
engagement. However, this does not eliminate the potential problem. Future
research should replicate the results presented here with other measures of
RVB that are not self-reported, such as police or school reports. Presently, the
NHYS is trying to obtain this type of information. Second, the participants
used in the current study were older adolescents and emerging adults. The
NHYS is currently seeking an additional cohort of middle school students as a
representation of younger adolescents to compare to the current sample.
Lastly, although the present results expand the integrated model of legal
socialization (Cohn et al., 2010), some measures proposed in the integrated
model and other legal socialization variables emphasized by Fagan and his
associates (Fagan & Piquero, 2007; Fagan & Tyler, 2005; Piquero et al., 2005)
were not included. Fagan and colleagues provided an alternative model of
legal socialization, whereby individuals develop their understanding of rules
and make decisions to engage in RVB as a function of their interaction with
legal authorities. When authorities treat individuals in a procedurally fair/just
manner, individuals are more likely to perceive them as legitimate and be less
cynical about the law. Legitimacy and cynicism, in turn, predict engagement in
RVB. Furthermore, researchers have also found that procedural justice influ-
ences parental legitimacy as well (Trinkner et al., 2012). Because the NHYS
does not have measures assessing procedural justice or legal cynicism, we were
unable to compare their alternative model with the integrated model of legal
socialization. However, the present results suggest that future research should
 402 E. S. Cohn et al.

work toward combining the two models into one single theoretical frame-
work, rather than assessing which model provides a better explanation of legal
socialization.
Due to the rotating schedule of measurement in the NHYS, some of the
integrated legal socialization model measures, specifically enforcement sta-
tus and attitudes toward the criminal legal system, were not available in
the phases used in the current study. Because these variables could not be
included, the current analysis was only a partial replication of the integrated
legal socialization model. Furthermore, the two legitimacy measures (police,
parental) and normative status were only available at the same phase. Ideally,
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

it would be beneficial for these measures to be taken at different phases

in order to establish a true longitudinal mediation model. Currently we are
addressing these issues by collecting data that will allow us to include all of
the original integrated legal socialization model variables at the appropriate
intervals, as well as the additional measures proposed by Fagan and Piquero
(2007), Fagan and Tyler (2005), and Piquero et al. (2005) to test the combined
models.

CONCLUSION
The purpose of the current study was to replicate a part of Cohn et al.’s (2010)
integrated legal socialization model and to test an extended model with percep-
tions of police and parental legitimacy. We replicated Cohn et al.’s (2010) model
partially. Legal attitudes (normative status) partially mediated between rea-
soning and RVB. Unlike Cohn et al. (2010), legal reasoning instead of moral
reasoning predicted normative status. This is more consistent with Cohn and
White (1990). The results of testing the extended model demonstrated that
police and parental legitimacy should be included in future legal socialization
models. Police and parental legitimacy mediated between legal reasoning and
normative status, while normative status mediated between police/parental
legitimacy and RVB. Our model and the resulting findings are a compromise
between the “get-tough” school and the “hands-off” school approaches to reduc-
ing juvenile crime. Instead of punishment, both formal (police) and informal
(parental) authorities are important in affecting normative status, which then
affects engagement in RVB.

NOTE
1. Average grades were correlated with SES (r = .37, p < .001), sex (r = −.14, p < .01),
legal reasoning (r = .25, p < .001), and moral reasoning (r = .15, p < .01). Legal rea-
soning was also correlated with sex (r = −.14, p < .05), age (r = −.12, p < .05), and
moral reasoning (r = .51, p < .001). Finally, sex and moral reasoning were correlated
(r = −.31, p < .001).
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 403

REFERENCES
Akers, R. L. (2009). Social structure and social learning: A general theory of crime and
deviance. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Arbuckle, J. L. (2010). Amos 18.0 User’s Guide. Spring House, PA: Amos Development.
Bendixen, M., Endresen, I. M., & Olweus, D. (2003). Variety and frequency scales of
antisocial involvement: Which one is better? Legal and Criminological Psychology,
8(2), 135–150. doi: 10.1348/135532503322362924
Blasi, A. (1980). Bridging moral cognition and moral action: A critical review of the
literature. Psychological Bulletin, 88(1), 1–45. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.88.1.1
Browne, M. W. (1984). Asymptotically distribution-free methods for the analysis of
covariance structures. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology,
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

37(1), 62–83.
Cohn, E. S., Bucolo, D. O., Rebellon, C. J., & Van Gundy, K. (2010). An integrated model
of legal and moral reasoning and RVB: The role of legal attitudes. Law and Human
Behavior, 34(4), 295–309. doi: 10.1007/s10979-009-9185-9
Cohn, E. S., & White, S. O. (1990). Legal socialization: A study of norms and rules. New
York: Springer-Verlag.
Damon, W. (1988). The moral child: Nurturing children’s natural moral growth. New
York: Free Press.
Darling, N., Cumsille, P., & Martinez, M. L. (2007). Adolescents as active agents
in the socialization process: Legitimacy of parental authority and obligation to
obey as predictors of obedience. Journal of Adolescence, 30(2), 297–311. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2006.03.003
Darling, N., Cumsille, P., & Martinez, M. L. (2008). Individual differences in adoles-
cents’ beliefs about the legitimacy of parental authority and their own obligation
to obey: A longitudinal investigation. Child Development, 79(4), 1103–1118. doi:
10.1111/j.1467-8624.2008.01178.x
Darling, C., Cumsille, P., & Peña-Alampay, L. (2005). Rules, obligation to obey, and obe-
dience in three cultures: Age-related differences and the development of autonomy.
New Directions for Child Development, 108, 47–60. doi: 10.1002/cd.127
Darling, N., & Steinberg, L. (1993). Parenting style as context: An integrative model.
Psychological Bulletin, 113(3), 487–496. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.113.3.487
Dubin, E. R., & Dubin, R. (1963). The authority inception period in socialization. Child
Development, 34(4), 885–898.
Fagan, J., & Piquero, A. R. (2007). Rational choice and developmental influences on
recidivism among adolescent felony offenders. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies,
4(4), 715–748. doi: 10.1111/j.1740-1461.2007.00105.x
Fagan, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2005). Legal socialization of children and adolescents. Social
Justice Research, 18(3), 217–242. doi: 10.1007/s11211-005-6823-3
Finckenauer, J. O. (1995). Russian youth: Law, deviance, and the pursuit of freedom.
New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.
Gottfredson, M. R., & Hirschi, T. (1990). A general theory of crime. Stanford, CA:
Stanford University Press.
Grant, H. B. (2006). Building a culture of lawfulness: Law enforcement, legal rea-
soning, and delinquency among Mexican youth. El Paso, TX: LFB Scholarly
Publishing.
 404 E. S. Cohn et al.

Hains, A. A., & Miller, D. J. (1980). Moral and cognitive development in delinquent
and nondelinquent children and adolescents. Journal of Genetic Psychology, 137(1),
21–35.
Hindelang, M. J., Hirschi, T., & Weis, J. G. (1981). Measuring delinquency. Beverly Hills,
CA: Sage.
Hoeve, M. D., Eichelsheim, J. S., van der Laan, V. I., Smeenk, P. H., Gerris, W., & Jan, R.
M. (2009). The relationship between parenting and delinquency: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 37(6), 749–775. doi: 10.1007/s10802-009-
9310-8
Kohlberg, L. (1963/2008). The development of children’s orientations toward a moral
order: I. Sequence in the development of moral thought. Human Development,
51(1), 8–20. doi: 10.1159/00011253
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

Laupa, M. (1991). Children’s reasoning about three authority attributes: Adult sta-
tus, knowledge, and social position. Developmental Psychology, 27(2), 321–329. doi:
10.1037/0012-1649.27.2.321
Laupa, M., & Turiel, E. (1993). Children’s concepts of authority and social
contexts. Journal of Educational Psychology, 85(1), 191–197. doi: 10.1037/
0022-0663.85.1.191
Laupa, M., Turiel, E., & Cowan, P. A. (1995). Obedience to authority in children and
adults. In M. Killen & D. Hart (Eds.), Morality in everyday life: Developmental
perspectives (pp. 131–165). New York: Cambridge University Press.
Lee, J. M., Steinberg, L., Piquero, A. R., & Knight, G. P. (2011). Identity-linked per-
ceptions of the police among African American juvenile offenders: A developmental
perspective. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 40(1), 23–37. doi: 10.1007/s10964-010-
9553-2
Levine, F. J. (1979). The legal reasoning of youth: Dimensions and correlates.
Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Chicago.
Levine, F. J., & Tapp, J. L. (1977). The dialectic of legal socialization in community
and school. In J. L. Tapp & F. J. Levine (Eds.), Law, justice and the individual in
society: Psychological and legal issues (pp. 163–182). New York: Holt, Rinehart, and
Winston.
Milinitsky-Sapiro, C., Turiel, E., & Nucci, L. (2006). Brazilian adolescents’ conceptions
of autonomy and parental authority. Cognitive Development, 21(3), 317–331. doi:
10.1016/j.cogdev.2006.01.001
Palmer, E. J., & Hollin, C. R. (2001). Sociomoral reasoning, perceptions of parenting,
and self-reported delinquency in adolescents. Applied Cognitive Psychology,
15, 85–100. doi: 10.1002/1099-0720(200101/02)15:1<85::AID-ACP691>3.0.
CO;2-6
Paternoster, R., & Pogarsky, G. (2009). Rational choice, agency and thoughtfully reflec-
tive decision making: The short- and long-term consequences of making good
choices. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 25(2), 103–127. doi: 10.1007/s10940-
009-9065-y
Piaget, J. (1932/1965). The moral judgment of the child. London: Routledge and Kegan
Paul.
Piquero, A. R., Fagan, J., Mulvey, E. P., Steinberg, L., & Odgers, C. (2005).
Developmental trajectories of legal socialization among serious adolescent offend-
ers. Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology, 96(1), 267–298. doi: 0091-4169/
05/9601-0267
 Legal Attitudes and Legitimacy 405

Piquero, A. R., & Pogarsky, G. (2002). Beyond Stafford and Warr’s reconceptualiza-
tion of deterrence: Personal and vicarious experiences, impulsivity, and offending
behavior. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39(2), 153–186. doi:
10.1177/002242780203900202
Pogarsky, G., Kim, K., & Paternoster, R. (2005). Perceptual change in the National
Youth Survey: Lessons for deterrence theory and offender decision-making. Justice
Quarterly, 22(1), 1–29. doi: 10.1080/0741882042000333627
Pogarsky, G., & Piquero, A. R. (2003). Can punishment encourage offending?
Investigating the “resetting” effect. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,
40(1), 95–120. doi: 10.1177/0022427802239255
Raaijmakers, Q. A. W., Engels, R. C. M. E., & Van Hoof, A. (2005). Delinquency and
moral reasoning in adolescence and young adulthood. International Journal of
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012

Behavioral Development, 29(3), 247–258. doi: 10.1080/01650250544000035

Rebellon, C. J., & Waldman, I. (2003). Deconstructing “force and fraud”: An empirical
assessment of the generality of crime. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 19(3),
303–331. doi: 10.1023/A:1024961026078
Shelton, C. M., & McAdams, D. P. (1990). In search of everyday morality: The
development of a measure. Adolescence, 25(100), 923–943.
Smetana, J. G., & Daddis, C. (2002). Domain-specific antecedents of parental psycho-
logical control and monitoring: The role of parenting beliefs and practices. Child
Development, 73(2), 563–580. doi: 10.1111/1467-8624.00424
Stams, G. J., Brugman, D., Dekovic, M., van Rosmalen, L., van der Laan, P., &
Gibbs, J. C. (2006). The moral judgment of delinquent juveniles: A meta-analysis.
Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 34(5), 697–713. doi: 10.1007/s10802-006-
9056-5
Steinberg, L., & Morris, A. S. (2001). Adolescent development. Annual Review of
Psychology, 52, 83–110. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.52.1.83
Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in
shaping public support for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548. doi:
10.1111/1540-5893.3703002
Tapp, J. L. (1976). Psychology and the law: An overture. Annual Review of Psychology,
27, 359–404. doi: 10.1146/annurev.ps.27.020176.002043
Tapp, J. L., & Kohlberg, L. (1971). Developing senses of law and legal justice. Journal
of Social Issues, 27(2), 65–91. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-4560.1971.tb00654.x
Tapp, J. L., & Levine, F. J. (1974). Legal socialization: Strategies for an ethical legality.
Stanford Law Review, 27, 1–72.
Tisak, M. S. (1986). Children’s conceptions of parental authority. Child Development,
57(1), 166–176. doi: 10.2307/1130648
Trinkner, R. (2012). Testing the procedural justice model of legal socialization:
Expanding beyond the legal world. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University
of New Hampshire, Durham.
Trinkner, R., Cohn, E. S., Rebellon, C. J., & Van Gundy, K. (2012). Don’t trust anyone
over 30: Parental legitimacy as a mediator between parenting style and changes
in delinquent behavior over time. Journal of Adolescence, 35(1), 119–132. doi:
10.1016/j.adolescence.2011.05.003
Turiel, E. (1983). The development of social knowledge: Morality and convention.
New York: Cambridge University Press.
 406 E. S. Cohn et al.

Tyler, T. R. (2006a). Why people obey the law (2nd ed.). New Haven, CT: Yale University
Press.
Tyler, T. R. (2006b). Psychological perspectives on legitimacy and legitimation. Annual
Review of Psychology, 57, 375–400. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.57.102904.190038
Tyler, T. R., & Huo, Y. J. (2002). Trust in the law: Encouraging public cooperation with
the police and courts. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.
Tyler, T. R., Schulhofer, S., & Huq, A. Z. (2010). Legitimacy and deterrence effects in
counterterrorism policing: A study of Muslim Americans. Law and Society Review,
44(2), 365–402. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5893.2010.00405.x
Wolpin, K. (1983). The national longitudinal handbook 1983–1984. Columbus, OH:
Center for Human Resource Research, Ohio State University.
Downloaded by [Ellen S. Cohn] at 09:51 10 October 2012