시민의 경찰활동에 대한 인식이 경찰 정당성에 미치는 영향 - 경찰 신뢰와 절차적 공정성을 중심으로 - = The Effects of Citizens’ View of Policing Activities on Legitimacy: Focused on Police Trust and Procedural Fairness

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

This study empirically examines the effects of citizens’ views of policing activities on police legitimacy in South Korea, with a particular focus on police trust and procedural fairness. Policing activities were classified into three models: Traditional Policing, Community Policing, and Smart Policing. In this study, police legitimacy was examined through two key perceptual dimensions: police trust and procedural fairness. By comparing the relative effects of citizens’ views of the three policing models, this study aims to identify which aspects of policing citizens consider most important when evaluating the legitimacy of the police.
Survey data were collected in April 2026 from 1,000 adults aged 19 and older residing across 17 metropolitan and provincial jurisdictions in South Korea. The sample was constructed using quota sampling based on gender, age, and region. The analysis was conducted using SPSS 29 and Mplus 8. The study first examined the reliability and validity of the measurement items through exploratory factor analysis and Cronbach’s alpha. Descriptive statistics, correlation analysis, group difference tests, repeated-measures analysis of variance, hierarchical regression analysis, and multilevel modeling were then employed to test the research questions and hypotheses.
The major findings are as follows. First, citizens’ views of policing activities differed significantly across the three policing models. Smart Policing showed the highest mean evaluation, followed by Traditional Policing and Community Policing. This indicates that citizens tend to view technology-based policing relatively positively. However, Community Policing recorded the lowest level of evaluation, suggesting that cooperative police–community relations and citizen participation in local policing have not yet been sufficiently established in the Korean context.
Second, citizens’ views of policing activities had significant effects on police legitimacy. At the model level, all three policing models were positively associated with police trust and procedural fairness. However, the magnitude of influence differed across models. Traditional Policing showed the strongest effect on police legitimacy, followed by Community Policing and Smart Policing. This finding suggests that although citizens evaluate Smart Policing relatively positively, their perceptions of police legitimacy are still more strongly grounded in the traditional functions of policing, such as crime control, law enforcement, and criminal investigation.
Third, at the sub-factor level, crime clearance and law enforcement within Traditional Policing emerged as the most influential predictors of police trust and procedural fairness. By contrast, the sub-factors of Smart Policing, including data-based decision-making, crime analysis and prediction, and the use of advanced technologies, showed comparatively weaker or statistically non-significant effects. These results imply that technology-based policing has not yet been fully translated into citizens’ perceptions of police legitimacy. In other words, citizens may recognize the usefulness of advanced technologies in policing, but such recognition does not automatically lead to higher levels of police trust or stronger perceptions of procedural fairness.
Fourth, the multilevel analysis showed that regional variation in police legitimacy was very limited. The intraclass correlation coefficient was extremely low, indicating that only a negligible proportion of variance in police legitimacy was attributable to differences between regions. Furthermore, most regional-level variables, including policing demand, police resources, neighborhood relationships, neighborhood participation, and local election turnout, did not show consistent or robust direct effects on police legitimacy. Cross-level interaction effects between individual-level views of policing activities and regional-level variables were also limited and should be interpreted with caution due to the low level of between-region variance and estimation instability in some models.
These findings have several implications. Theoretically, this study contributes to police legitimacy research by comparing Traditional Policing, Community Policing, and Smart Policing within a unified empirical framework. It also extends existing studies by incorporating regional-level contextual factors, while demonstrating that regional differences in police legitimacy may be limited in a centralized national police system such as South Korea’s. Methodologically, the findings suggest that multilevel analysis should be applied cautiously when between-region variance is extremely low.
From a policy perspective, the results indicate that the Korean police should not assume that technological innovation alone will enhance police legitimacy. While Smart Policing may improve efficiency and receive positive evaluations from citizens, police legitimacy continues to depend heavily on the basic and visible functions of Traditional Policing, particularly fair law enforcement and effective crime control. At the same time, the relatively low evaluation of Community Policing suggests the need to strengthen police–citizen partnerships, problem-solving capacity, and opportunities for citizen participation in local safety governance.
In conclusion, this study shows that citizens’ views of policing activities are closely related to police legitimacy. However, the pathway to legitimacy differs across policing models. In the Korean context, citizens continue to place strong importance on the police’s traditional role in maintaining public order and controlling crime, even as they positively evaluate technology-based policing. Therefore, future policing strategies should seek a balanced model that strengthens the fundamental functions of Traditional Policing, expands meaningful Community Policing, and integrates Smart Policing in a way that enhances police trust, procedural fairness, and democratic accountability.

목차 (Table of Contents)

• 제1장 서 론 1
• 제1절 연구의 필요성 및 목적 1
• 제2절 연구의 범위 및 방법 6
• 1. 연구의 범위 6
• 2. 연구의 방법 8
• 제2장 이론적 배경 11
• 제1절 경찰활동 유형의 이해 11
• 1. 경찰활동 유형의 발전 과정 11
• 2. 경찰활동 유형과 특징 15
• 제2절 경찰 정당성 28
• 1. 경찰 정당성의 의의 29
• 2. 경찰 정당성의 내용 31
• 3. 경찰 신뢰와 절차적 공정성 35
• 제3절 지역사회 환경과 구조적 맥락 40
• 1. 생태학적이론 40
• 2. 맥락효과 모델 42
• 제4절 선행연구 검토 44
• 1. 경찰 정당성 인식 연구 44
• 2. 경찰활동모델 인식과 경찰 정당성의 관계 48
• 3. 지역환경 특성과 경찰 정당성의 관계 56
• 제3장 연구의 설계 60
• 제1절 연구모형과 연구가설 60
• 1. 연구모형 60
• 2. 연구가설 61
• 제2절 변수의 조작적 정의와 측정 64
• 1. 종속변수 64
• 2. 독립변수 70
• 3. 통제변수 89
• 제3절 자료수집 및 분석 방법 95
• 1. 자료수집 95
• 2. 분석방법 97
• 제4장 연구결과 및 논의 99
• 제1절 기술통계 및 상관관계분석 99
• 1. 표본의 인구사회학적 특성 99
• 2. 주요변수의 기술통계 101
• 3. 주요변수 간 상관관계 및 다중공선성 검토 106
• 제2절 인구사회학적지역적 특성에 따른 차이 분석 110
• 1. 성별에 따른 차이 111
• 2. 연령대에 따른 차이 112
• 3. 소득수준에 따른 차이 114
• 4. 지역 수준 변수에 따른 차이 115
• 제3절 경찰활동 모델 만족도 수준 분석 117
• 1. 경찰활동 모델 및 하위요인별 만족도 수준 117
• 2. 경찰활동 모델 간 만족도 차이 119
• 제4절 경찰활동 만족도의 효과 및 모델 간 비교 121
• 1. 경찰활동 만족도가 경찰 정당성에 미치는 영향 121
• 2. 경찰활동 모델 간 영향력 비교 129
• 제5절 지역 수준 요인 및 상호작용 효과 분석 133
• 1. 무조건 모형 및 지역 간 변량 분석 133
• 2. 지역 수준 변수의 직접효과 136
• 3. 개인-지역 간 상호작용 효과 141
• 제6절 연구가설 검증 결과 143
• 제5장 결 론 147
• 참 고 문 헌 152
• ABSTRACT 167
• 부 록 172