Advertisement

Journal of Experimental Criminology

, Volume 13, Issue 1, pp 125–142 | Cite as

The body-worn camera perspective bias

  • Rémi BoivinEmail author
  • Annie Gendron
  • Camille Faubert
  • Bruno Poulin
Article

Abstract

Objectives

Footage from body-worn cameras (BWCs) is sometimes used to assess the quality of police interventions. This study investigates whether there is a “body-worn camera perspective bias,” in which the point of view provided by the footage influences perception of an intervention.

Methods

Participants with different backgrounds (undergraduate students and police candidates) were randomly allocated to a group that looked at one of two videos showing a fictional police intervention during which lethal force was used against a subject; both videos showed exactly the same intervention, but one had been filmed with a BWC and the other with a surveillance camera installed in a top corner of the room. Participants were then asked to rate the appropriateness of the intervention.

Results

No camera perspective bias was found among university respondents. However a significant camera perspective bias was found among police candidates: respondents’ opinions on the appropriateness of the intervention were significantly different when the film was from the body-worn camera than when it was seen from the surveillance camera. This result may be explained by the finding that viewers of the BWC footage reported that the subject was further from the officer.

Conclusions

Results suggest that the more training individuals have in analyzing police interventions, the more affected they will be by the camera perspective in these interventions. One implication of these results is that the perspective of people assigned and trained to evaluate the appropriateness of an intervention (e.g., members of a committee monitoring police misconduct) might be biased if only video footage from a BWC is presented.

Keywords

Body-worn cameras Use-of-force On-officer video cameras Perspective bias Police Distance perception 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (Canada) under Grant 430-2014-0213. The authors would like to thank Maude Paquet, Chloé Leclerc, and Jean-François Vandry for their comments on a preliminary version, as well as Joan McGilvray for her careful copyediting.

References

  1. Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: a randomized controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509–535.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R. (2016). Report: increases in police use of force in the presence of body-worn cameras are driven by officer discretion: a protocol-based subgroup analysis of ten randomized experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology. doi: 10.1007/s11292-016-9261-3.Google Scholar
  3. Belur, J. (2009). Police use of deadly force police perceptions of a culture of approval. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 25(2), 237–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale: L. Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  5. Elek, J. K., Ware, L. J., & Ratcliff, J. J. (2012). Knowing when the camera lies: judicial instructions mitigate the camera perspective bias. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 17, 123–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: a flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Graham v. Connor, 490 389 (U.S. 1989).Google Scholar
  8. Grossmith, L., Owens, C., Finn, W., Mann, D., Davies, T., & Baika, L. (2015). Police, camera, evidence: London’s cluster randomised controlled trial of Body Worn Video. London: College of Policing, Mayor of London, Metropolitan Police.Google Scholar
  9. Hennessy, D. A., & Jakubowski, R. (2007). The impact of visual perspective and anger on the actor-observer bias among automobile drivers. Traffic Injury Prevention, 8, 115–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. IACP. (2005). The impact of video evidence on modern policing. Washington D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice–Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  11. Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., & Lynch, M. D. (2014). Cops and cameras: officer perceptions of the use of body-worn cameras in law enforcement. Journal of Criminal Justice, 42, 549–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jennings, W. G., Lynch, M. D., & Fridell, L. A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: evidence from the Orlando Police Department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomized controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43, 480–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kahan, D. M., Hoffman, D. A., & Braman, D. (2009). Whose eyes are you going to believe? Scott V. Harris and the perils of cognitive illiberalism. Harvard Law Review, 122(1), 1–67.Google Scholar
  14. Kassin, S. M., Drizin, S. A., Grisso, T., Gudjonsson, G. H., Leo, R. A., & Redlich, A. D. (2010). Police-induced confessions: risk factors and recommendations. Law and Human Behavior, 34, 3–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Katz, C. M., Kurtenbach, M., Choate, D. E., & White, M. D. (2015). Phoenix, Arizona, smart policing initiative: evaluating the impact of police officer body-worn cameras. Phoenix: Smart Policing Initiative Spotlight Report.Google Scholar
  16. Kingslake, R. (1989). A history of the photographic lens. Chicago: Elsevier.Google Scholar
  17. Kraft, R. N. (1987). The influence of camera angle on comprehension and retention of pictorial events. Memory & Cognition, 15(4), 291–307.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Landstrom, S., & Granhag, P. A. (2008). Children’s truthful and deceptive testimonies: how camera perspective affects adult observers’ perception and assessment. Psychology, Crime & Law, 14(5), 381–396.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Landstrom, S., Af Hjelmsater, E. R., & Granhag, P. A. (2007). The camera perspective bias: a case study. Journal of Investigative Psychology and Offender Profiling, 4, 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lassiter, G. D., & Irvine, A. A. (1986). Videotaped confessions: the impact of camera point of view on judgments of coercion. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 16(3), 268–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lassiter, G. D., Slaw, R. D., Briggs, M. A., & Scanlan, C. R. (1992). The potential for bias in videotaped confessions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22(23), 1838–1851.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Munhall, P. J., Handley, I. M., & Beers, M. J. (2001). Videotaped confessions: is guilt in the eye of the camera? Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 189–254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lassiter, G. D., Beers, M. J., Geers, A. L., Handley, I. M., Munhall, P. J., & Weiland, P. E. (2002a). Further evidence of a robust point-of-view bias in videotaped confessions. Current Psychology, 21(3), 265–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Lassiter, G. D., Geers, A. L., Mandell, L. M., Ploutz-Snyder, R. J., & Breitenbecher, D. L. (2002b). Illusory causation: why it occurs. Psychological Science, 13(4), 299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Lassiter, G. D., Seidman Diamond, S., Schmidt, H. C., & Elek, J. K. (2007). Evaluating videotaped confessions: expertise provides no defense against the camera-perspective effect. Psychological Science, 18(3), 224–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lassiter, G. D., Ware, L. J., Ratcliff, J. J., & Irvin, C. R. (2009). Evidence of the camera perspective bias in authentic videotaped interrogations: implications for emerging reform in the criminal justice system. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 14, 157–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Lum, C., Koper, C., Merola, L., Scherer, A., & Reioux, A. (2015). Existing and ongoing body worn camera research: knowledge gaps and opportunities. Fairfax: Center for Evidence-Based Crime Policy, George Mason University.Google Scholar
  28. Mandell, L. M., & Shaw, D. L. (1973). Judging people in the news — unconsciously: effect of camera angle and bodily activity. Journal of Broadcasting, 17(3), 353–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. McArthur, L. Z. (1980). Illusory causation and illusory correlation: two epistemological accounts. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(4), 507–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Paoline, E. A., & Terrill, W. (2014). Police culture: Adapting to the strains of the job. Durham: Carolina Academic Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Park, K., & Pyo, J. (2012). An explanation for camera perspective bias in voluntariness judgment for video-recorded confession: suggestion of cognitive frame. Law and Human Behavior, 36(3), 184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phillips, S. W., Sobol, J. J., & Varano, S. P. (2010). Work attitudes of police recruits: is there a family connection? International Journal of Police Science & Management, 12(3), 460–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ratcliff, J. J., Lassiter, G. D., Schmidt, H. C., & Snyder, C. J. (2006). Camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions: experimental evidence of its perceptual basis. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 12(4), 197–206.Google Scholar
  34. Ready, J. T., & Young, J. T. N. (2015). The impact of on-officer video cameras on police-citizen contacts: findings from a controlled experiment in Mesa, AZ. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 445–458.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Reaves, B. A. (2015). Local police departments, 2013: Equipment and technology. Washington, D.C.: Bureau of Justice Statistics.Google Scholar
  36. Schwalbe, E., Maas, H. G., Kenter, M., & Wagner, S. (2009). Hemispheric image modeling and analysis techniques for solar radiation determination in forest ecosystems. Photogrammetric Engineering & Remote Sensing, 75(4), 375–384.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Scott vs. Harris, 550 372 (U.S. 2007).Google Scholar
  38. Steyn, D. G. (1980). The calculation of view factors from fisheye-lens photographs: Research note. Atmosphere–Ocean, 18(3), 254–258.Google Scholar
  39. Strasburger, H., Rentschler, I., & Juttner, M. (2011). Peripheral vision and pattern recognition: a review. Journal of Vision, 11(5), 1–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Terrill, W. (2009). The elusive nature of reasonableness. Criminology & Public Policy, 8(1), 163–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Tueller, D. [2004 (1983)]. How close is too close? Retrieved February 4, 2016, from http://www.theppsc.org/Staff_Views/Tueller/How.Close.htm.
  42. Ware, L. J., Lassiter, G. D., Patterson, S. M., & Ransom, M. R. (2008). Camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions: evidence that visual attention is a mediator. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 14(2), 192–200.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Rémi Boivin
    • 1
    Email author
  • Annie Gendron
    • 2
  • Camille Faubert
    • 1
  • Bruno Poulin
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Criminology, International Centre for Comparative CriminologyUniversité de MontréalMontréalCanada
  2. 2.International Centre for Comparative CriminologyÉcole nationale de police du Québec (Police Academy)NicoletCanada

Personalised recommendations