Cross-National Comparisons of Police Use-of-Force and Public Trust

Thesis Abstract

Cross-National Comparisons of Police Use-of-Force and Public Trust investigates how patterns of police use-of-force (UOF) correlate with levels of public trust across diverse national contexts. The study addresses the problem of inconsistent benchmarking, under-reporting, and cultural mediation of UOF incidents that hinder meaningful cross-national learning for policing reforms. The aim is to identify robust relationships between UOF incidence, transparency, accountability mechanisms, and public trust, and to explain how institutional, legal, and socio-cultural factors modulate these relationships. Specific objectives are (1) to quantify UOF rates and escalation patterns in a sample of ten countries with varying policing models; (2) to assess public trust using standardized survey metrics and to examine its association with UOF, perceived legitimacy, and procedural justice; (3) to test theoretical propositions from procedural justice theory and legitimacy theory about how transparency and accountability channels influence trust in police; (4) to compare the moderating role of macro-variables such as police funding, crime rates, and political context; and (5) to develop a cross-national framework for interpreting UOF and trust that informs policy and practice. The methodology adopts a cross-sectional mixed-methods design, integrating quantitative analysis of police UOF data and public opinion surveys with qualitative insights from stakeholder interviews. The population encompasses national police forces and adult citizens in five high-income and five middle-/low-income countries, selected to reflect variation in policing philosophies and governance structures. A stratified random sample will yield approximately 50,000 incident-level UOF records (10,000 per country, spanning a three-year window) and a parallel consumer-predominant survey sample of 12,000 respondents per country (total N ? 120,000) to ensure robust cross-national comparisons. Data collection instruments include harmonized police UOF incident templates, standardized public trust scales (including items on perceived legitimacy, fairness, and confidence in law enforcement), administrative data on accountability mechanisms, and semi-structured interview guides for policymakers, supervisors, and community representatives. Validity and reliability will be ensured via indicator harmonization procedures, back-translation for survey instruments, and inter-rater reliability checks for qualitative coding. Data analysis proceeds in three strands. First, descriptive statistics and multilevel regression will model the relationship between UOF frequency/severity (level-1) and public trust (level-2 country context), controlling for crime rates, surveillance capacity, and demographic variables. Second, structural equation modeling (SEM) will test a theoretical framework where transparency, accountability, and perceived procedural justice mediate the UOF-trust nexus, with moderation by political regime type and police legitimacy. Third, thematic analysis of interview data will extract contextual factors and best practices, triangulated with quantitative findings. The study will incorporate a nested model specification to handle cross-national clustering and potential non-independence of observations. Robustness checks will include alternative operationalizations of UOF (e.g., force mix, injuries, and escalation level) and propensity score matching to account for confounding. Analytical techniques will be implemented in R and Mplus, with sensitivity analyses to assess the impact of data quality and reporting differences across countries. Expected findings anticipate a negative association between high UOF prevalence and public trust, with stronger effects in jurisdictions exhibiting low transparency and weak accountability mechanisms. Theoretical contributions include empirical validation of procedural justice and legitimacy theories in cross-national policing contexts, highlighting the conditionality of trust gains from transparency and citizen participation. The study will also delineate how macro-structural factors such as governance quality and political stability shape the UOF-trust relationship, providing a refined cross-national model for understanding legitimacy in policing. The study contributes to knowledge by offering the first large-scale, harmonized comparative analysis linking objective UOF indicators to subjective public trust across diverse policing systems, identifying policy levers that strengthening legitimacy can mitigate adverse perceptions of force. Policy implications emphasize improving incident reporting, ensuring independent oversight, and embedding community engagement in policing reforms. Recommendations include adopting standardized UOF reporting frameworks, expanding transparent public dashboards, and fostering cross-country learning networks to translate empirical insights into context-sensitive reforms. The main conclusion posits that enhanced transparency and accountability, when aligned with fair and legitimate policing practices, can sustain public trust even in environments with elevated UOF rates, though the strength of this effect depends on national governance and cultural contexts.