No abstract

Objective: Our goal in the present study was to use longitudinal data to assess how normative (i.e., consensually motivated) and instrumental (i.e., coercively motivated) obligation to obey police changed after police murdered George Floyd and whether these changes differed by political ideology. Hypotheses: Using procedural justice theory, we hypothesized that after Floyd’s murder, participants would feel less normatively obligated and more instrumentally obligated to obey police. We also hypothesized that these trends would be stronger for liberal-leaning than conservative-leaning participants. Method: Adults (N = 645) were recruited through Prolific from four politically diverse U.S. states. Participants reported their normative and instrumental obligation across three waves of data collection, each separated by 3 weeks. The first two waves were collected prior to the Floyd’s murder, and the third was collected after. Results: Hierarchical linear models indicated that although normative obligation remained stable before Floyd’s murder, it declined after Floyd’s murder (b = −0.19, 95% CI [−0.24, −0.14], p < .001). In contrast, coercive obligation to obey increased consistently across all three waves. Liberal-leaning participants drove most of the effects. Conclusions: For researchers, these findings help strengthen our understanding of procedural justice theory by differentiating normative and instrumental obligation and by distinguishing differences by political ideology within the context of a historic police-brutality event. For policymakers and law enforcement, our research suggests that police brutality may undermine the public’s normative felt obligation to obey the police, which would be problematic for police reformation efforts grounded in governing by mutual consent versus by fear and coercion.