Perceived Legitimacy of Judicial Authorities in Relation to Degree of Value Discrepancy with Public Citizens

In this study of perceived legitimacy, Australian citizens from a randomly selected national sample first responded to information about how judicial authorities responded to two crimes (green protest, date rape) in terms of seriousness and recommended punishment. They also provided ratings of the importance of a set of values for judicial authorities compared with self, and measures of global value discrepancy, procedural fairness, expertise, and legitimacy. Results showed that perceived legitimacy was negatively related to global value discrepancy and that the information provided to participants about judge’s position primed differences in value discrepancy only for the date rape crime. Other findings also implied that the nature of the offense moderated legitimacy/value discrepancy relations. Perceived legitimacy was also positively related to procedural fairness and the expertise of the authority, and higher when the judicial authority was perceived to assign specific values as even more important than participants did themselves.