↓ Skip to main content

What Influences Perceptions of Procedural Justice Among People with Mental Illness Regarding their Interactions with the Police?

Overview of attention for article published in Community Mental Health Journal, January 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (75th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (93rd percentile)

Mentioned by

policy
1 policy source
twitter
2 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
25 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
75 Mendeley
Title
What Influences Perceptions of Procedural Justice Among People with Mental Illness Regarding their Interactions with the Police?
Published in
Community Mental Health Journal, January 2013
DOI 10.1007/s10597-012-9571-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

James D. Livingston, Sarah L. Desmarais, Caroline Greaves, Richard Parent, Simon Verdun-Jones, Johann Brink

Abstract

According to procedural justice theory, a central factor shaping perceptions about authority figures and dispute resolution processes is whether an individual believes they were treated justly and fairly during personal encounters with agents of authority. This paper describes findings from a community-based participatory research study examining perceptions of procedural justice among sixty people with mental illness regarding their interactions with police. The degree to which these perceptions were associated with selected individual (e.g., socio-demographic characteristics), contextual (e.g., neighborhood, past experiences), and interactional (e.g., actions of the officer) factors was explored. The results of regression analyses indicate that the behavior of police officers during the interactions appears to be the key to whether or not these interactions are perceived by people with mental illness as being procedurally just. Implications of these findings for improving interactions between the police and people with mental illness are discussed.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 2 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 75 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 75 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 20%
Student > Ph. D. Student 11 15%
Student > Bachelor 9 12%
Researcher 6 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 8 11%
Unknown 23 31%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Social Sciences 25 33%
Psychology 17 23%
Nursing and Health Professions 5 7%
Medicine and Dentistry 3 4%
Business, Management and Accounting 1 1%
Other 0 0%
Unknown 24 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 March 2021.
All research outputs
#6,270,846
of 22,751,628 outputs
Outputs from Community Mental Health Journal
#273
of 1,280 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#67,439
of 281,220 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Community Mental Health Journal
#1
of 15 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,751,628 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,280 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 5.8. This one has done well, scoring higher than 78% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 281,220 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 75% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 15 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 93% of its contemporaries.