Mecanismos generadores de la confianza en la institución policial

  1. León Medina, Francisco José
Revista:
Indret: Revista para el Análisis del Derecho

ISSN: 1698-739X

Año de publicación: 2014

Número: 2

Tipo: Artículo

DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Indret: Revista para el Análisis del Derecho

Resumen

El objetivo de este artículo es contribuir a la mejora del conocimiento del proceso cognitivo que conduce al reconocimiento de la institución policial como merecedora de confianza. Basándonos en la teoría evolucionaria, planteamos la hipótesis de que los mecanismos cognitivos que sostienen la confianza en las instituciones han de ser los mismos que los que la evolución esculpió para hacer emerger la confianza en las interacciones sociales. Esto nos permitirá identificar tres mecanismos generadores de confianza en las instituciones: la evaluación de su eficacia, la evaluación de la justicia de sus procedimientos y la identificación o alineamiento moral con la institución. Ponemos a prueba estas hipótesis analizando datos de la Encuesta Social Europea. Basándonos en el análisis de ocho modelos de regresión, concluimos que los tres mecanismos ejercen una influencia significativa sobre la confianza, y por tanto han de ser considerados en cualquier aproximación a la comprensión de este fenómeno. Además del efecto neto de cada variable, las tres muestran algunos patrones de interacción teóricamente relevantes y estadísticamente significativos.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • BADCOCK, C. (2003), Evolutionary Psychology: A Critical Introduction, Polity Press, Cambridge.
  • BARON-COHEN, S. (2008), “The evolution of brain mechanisms for social behavior”, en Crawford, Ch y Krebs, D. (eds.) Foundations of evolutionary psychology: ideas, issues, applications and findings, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
  • BARRETT, H.C. (2008), “Evolved cognitive mechanisms and human behavior”, en Crawford, C. y Krebs, D. (eds.) Foundations of evolutionary psychology: ideas, issues applications and findings, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
  • BAUMGARTNER, T., HEINRICHS, M., VONLANTHEN, A., FISCHBACHER, U. y FEHR, E. (2008), “Oxytocin shapes the neural circuitry of trust and trust adaptation in humans”, Neuron, 58(4), pp. 639-650.
  • BEETHAM, D. (1991), The legitimation of power, Palgrave Macmillan
  • BERG, J. DICKHAUT, J. y McCABE, K. (1995), “Trust, Reciprocity, and Social History”, Games and Economic Behavior, 10, pp. 122-142
  • BERGMAN, M.y FLOM, H. (2012), “Determinantes de la confianza en la policía: una comparación entre Argentina y México”, Perfiles Latinoamericanos, 40, pp.97-122.
  • BINZEL, C. y FEHR, D. (2013), “Social distance and trust: Experimental evidence from a slum in Cairo”, Journal of Development Economics, vol.103, pp.99-106
  • BOUDON, R. (2006), “Homo sociologicus: neither a rational nor an irrational idiot”, Papers. Revista de Sociologia, 80. Pp. 149-169.
  • BOWLES, S. y GINTIS, H. (1998), “Is equality passé? Homo Reciprocans and the future of egalitarianpolitics”, Boston Review, 23(6), pp. 1–27.
  • BRANDTS, J. y SOLÀ, C. (2001), “Reference Points and Negative Reciprocity in Simple Sequential Games”, Games and Economic Behavior, Vol. 36 (2), pp. 138–157.
  • BUCHAN, N. y CROSON, R. (2004), “The boundaries of trust: Own and others’ actions in the US and China”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 55(4), pp. 485-504.
  • BUCHAN, N. R., JOHNSON, E. J. y CROSON, R. T. (2006), “Let's get personal: An international examination of the influence of communication, culture and social distance on other regarding preferences”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 60(3), pp. 373-398.
  • CHARNESS, G. (2004), “Attribution and Reciprocity in an Experimental Labor Market”, Journal of Labor Economics, Vol. 22 (3), pp. 665-688
  • COICAUD, J.M. (2002), Legitimacy and Politics: A Contribution to the Study of Political Right and Political Responsibility, Cambridge University Press
  • COMIDES, L. y TOOBY, J. (2013), “Evolutionary Psychology: New Perspectives on Cognition and Motivation”, Annual Review of Psychology 64, pp.201-229
  • De DREU, C.K.W., GREER, L.L., HANDGRAAF, M.J.J., SHALVI, S., VAN KLEEF, G.A., BAAS, M., et al., (2010), “The neuropeptide oxytocin regulates parochial altruism in intergroup conflict among humans”, Science 328, pp.1408—1411
  • De QUERVAIN, D.J.F., FISCHBACHER, U., TREYER, V., SCHELTHAMMER, M., SCHNYDER, U., BUCK, A. y FEHR, E. (2004), “The neural basis of altruistic punishment”, Science 305, pp. 1254–1258
  • De BRUINE, L.M. (2002), “Facial resemblance enhances trust”, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London, Series B: Biological Sciences, 269 (1498), pp.1307-1312.
  • DELGADO, M. R., FRANK, R. H. y PHELPS, E. A. (2005), “Perceptions of moral character modulate the neural systems of reward during the trust game”, Nature neuroscience, 8(11), pp. 1611-1618.
  • DUFWENBERG, M. y KIRCHSTEIGER, G., (2004), “A theory of sequential reciprocity”, Games and Economic Behavior 47, pp. 268–298
  • ETANG, A., FIELDING, D. y KNOWLES, S. (2011), “Does trust extend beyond the village? Experimental trust and social distance in Cameroon”, Experimental Economics, 14(1), pp. 15-35.
  • FAGAN, J.; MEARES, T. y TYLER, T. (2011), “Street Stops and Police Legitimacy in New York”, comunicación en The Crime Decline Conference.
  • FALK, A. y FISCHBACHER, U. (2006), “A theory of reciprocity”, Games and Economic Behavior, 54(2), pp. 293-315.
  • FALK, A.; FEHR, E. y FISCHBACHER, U. (2008), “Testing theories of fairness—Intentions matter”, Games and Economic Behavior 62, pp. 287–303
  • FEHR, E., KIRCHSTEIGER, G. y RIEDL, A. (1993), “Does fairness prevent market clearing? An experimental investigation”, Quarterly Journal of Economics CVIII, pp. 437–460
  • FEHR, E., FISCHBACHER, U. y KOSFELD, M. (2005), “Neuroeconomic foundations of trust and social preferences: initial evidence”, American Economic Review, pp. 346-351
  • FERNÁNDEZ, E. y GRIBALBA, A. E. (2012), “Diseño y validación de dos escalas para medir el miedo al delito y la confianza en la policía”, Revista Española de Investigación Criminológica, nº10
  • FODDY, M. y DAWES, R. (2008), “Group-based trust in social dilemmas”, en Biel et al. (eds.) New issues and paradigms in research on social dilemmas, Springer.
  • GAU, J.M. y BRUNSON, R. K. (2010), “Procedural justice and order maintenance policing: a atudy of inner-city young men’s perceptions of police legitimacy”, Justice Quarterly, 27:2, pp. 255-279
  • HASELTON, M. G., y BUSS, D. (2000), “Error ManagementTheory: a new perspective on biases in cross-sex mind reading”, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, pp. 81-91.
  • HERREROS, F. (2004). The problem of forming social capital: why trust?. Palgrave Macmillan.
  • HOROWITZ, J. (2007), Making every encounter count: Building Trust and Confidence in the Police, National Institute of Justice Journal, núm. 256, enero.
  • HOUGH, M. y ROBERTS, J. V. (2004), Confidence in Justice: An International Review. London: Home Office.
  • HOUGH, M.; JACKSON, J.; BRADFORD, B.; MYHILL, A. y QUINTON, P. (2010), “Procedural justice, trust, and institutional legitimacy”, Policing 4 (3), pp. 203-210.
  • JACKSON, J. y SUNSHINE, J. (2007), “Public confidence in policing: a neo-Durkheimian perspective”, British journal of criminology, 47 (2). pp. 214-233
  • JACKSON, J., BRADFORD, B., HOUGH, M., KUHA, J., STARES, S., WIDDOP, S., FITZGERALD, R., YORDANOVA, M. y GALEV, T. (2011), “Developing European indicators of trust in justice”, European Journal of Criminology, 8 (4), pp. 267-285.
  • KÉRI, S. y KISS, I. (2011), “Oxytocin response in a trust game and habituation of arousal”, Physiology & behavior, 102(2), pp. 221-224.
  • KING-CASAS, B., TOMLIN, D., ANEN, C., CAMERER, C. F., QUARTZ, S. R. y MONTAGUE, P. R. (2005), “Getting to know you: reputation and trust in a two-person economic exchange”, Science, 308(5718), pp. 78-83.
  • KOLLOCK, P. (1997), “Transforming social dilemmas: group identity and cooperation," en Danielson, P. (ed.) Modeling Rational and Moral Agents, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • KOSFELD, M., HEINRICHS, M., ZAK, P.J., FISCHBACHER, U. y FEHR, E., (2005), “Oxytocin increases trust in humans”, Nature 435, pp. 673—676
  • KRUPP, D. B.; DEBRUINE, L.M. y BARCLAY, P. (2008), “A cue of kinship promotes cooperation for the public good”, Evolution and Human Behavior 29 (1), pp. 49-55.
  • McCABE, K. A.; RIGDON, M. L. y SMITH, V. L. (2003), “Positive reciprocity and intentions in trust games”, Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, 52(2), pp. 267-275.
  • MCCABE, K. y SMITH, V. (2000), “Goodwill accountingin economic exchange”, en Gigerenzer, G., Selten, R. (eds.) Bounded Rationality: The Adaptive Toolbox. MIT Press, Cambridge, pp. 319–340.
  • Plous, S. (1993), The availibility heuristic. The psychology of judgment and decision making. New York. McGraw-Hill
  • RABIN, M. (1993), “Incorporating fairness into game theory and economics”, The American Economic Review, pp.1281-1302.
  • RILLING, J. K., GUTMAN, D. A., ZEH, T. R., PAGNONI, G., BERNS, G. S. y KILTS, C. D. (2002), “A neural basis for social cooperation”, Neuron, 35(2), pp.395-405.
  • RILLING, J. K., KING-CASAS, B. y SANFEY, A. G. (2008), “The neurobiology of social decision-making”, Current opinion in neurobiology, 18(2), pp.159-165.
  • SANFEY, A. G. (2007), “Social decision-making: insights from game theory and neuroscience”, Science, 318(5850), pp. 598-602.
  • SEN, A. (1997), ‘‘Maximization and the Act of Choice”, Econometrica 65, pp. 745-779
  • SINGER, T., SEYMOUR, B., O’DOHERTY, J.P., STEPHAN, K.E., DOLAN, R.J. y FRITH, C.D. (2006), “Empathic neural responses are modulated by the perceived fairness of others”, Nature 439, pp. 466–469.
  • SZTOMPKA, P. (1999), Trust. A sociological theory, Cambridge University Press
  • TANG, S. (2010), "The social evolutionary psychology of fear (and trust): Or why is international cooperation difficult", Annual meeting of the ISA’s 49th Annual Convention, Bridging Multiple Divides, San Francisco, USA.
  • TVERSKY, A., y KAHNEMAN, D. (1973), “Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability”, Cognitive Psychology, 5, pp. 207-232.
  • TYLER, T. (1990), Why people obey the law, Yale University, New Heaven
  • TYLER, T. (2004), “Enhancing Police Legitimacy”, The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 593, pp.84-99
  • TYLER, T. (2005), “Policing in Black and White: Ethnic Group Differences in Trust and Confidence in the Police”, Police Quarterly, vol.8, núm. 3, pp. 322-342.
  • TYLER, T. y FAGAN, J. (2008), “Legitimacy and Cooperation: Why Do People Help the Police Fight Crime in Their Communities?”, Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, Vol. 6, pp. 231-274
  • VAN IJZENDOORN, M. H. y BAKERMANS-KRANENBURG, M. J. (2012), “A sniff of trust: meta-analysis of the effects of intranasal oxytocin administration on face recognition, trust to in-group, and trust to out-group”, Psychoneuroendocrinology, 37(3), pp. 438-443.
  • YAMAGISHI, T. (1998), Thestructure of trust. An evolutionary game of mind and society, Tokyo University Press
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet