Do body-worn cameras reduce eyewitness cooperation with the police? An experimental inquiry

  • J. A. HammEmail author
  • A. M. D’Annunzio
  • B. H. Bornstein
  • L. Hoetger
  • M. N. Herian



The current research adds to the literature addressing police body-worn cameras (BWCs) by experimentally evaluating their effect on an interaction that has, to date, received relatively little systematic, empirical attention: police–eyewitness interactions. Although research suggests that BWCs generally have positive effects, legal scholars and media professionals have long argued that deploying cameras in this context may backfire, especially by chilling public willingness to speak with police.


The current study utilized an online national convenience sample (N = 508) to test the effect of four factors that were varied across seven mock interview video conditions on participants’ willingness to cooperate, the amount of information provided, accuracy and confidence in an eyewitness identification task, and perceptions like procedural fairness and trust. We hypothesized that the presence and activation of the camera would have positive effects on the interaction.


Regarding the factors, the manipulated presence of a recording camera had the most consistent positive impact. Whether the camera was present, and the participant’s awareness of the camera and the fact that it was recording were also tested, but these comparisons were less likely to reach statistical significance. Regarding the conditions, the best outcomes were associated with officers who turned on the camera and did not explain why. Conversely, the worst outcomes were associated with officers who turned off the cameras without explanation.


Our results suggest that the positive effects of BWCs may extend to police–eyewitness interactions and reveal no evidence of a chilling effect on eyewitness-relevant outcomes.


Body-worn cameras Chilling effect Witness interviews Trust Eyewitness identification Video vignettes 



The authors gratefully acknowledge Assistant Chief Ken Plaga and Officer Richard Grillo of the Meridian Township Police Department and Dr. Adam Zwickle for their help in designing and filming the condition videos. The authors are also grateful to Drs. Caitlin Cavanagh, Justin Nix, Sean P. Roche, and Scott Wolfe for their collegial support and feedback in the preparation of this manuscript.

Data availability statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.


  1. Blitz, J. (2015). Police body-worn cameras: Evidentiary benefits and privacy threats. Wake Forest Journal of Business and Intellectual Property Law, 1.Google Scholar
  2. Bornstein, B. H., Laub, C. E., Meissner, C. A., & Susa, K. J. (2013). The cross-race effect: Resistant to instructions. Journal of Criminology, 2013, 1–6. Article ID 745836. Scholar
  3. Crow, M. S., Snyder, J. A., Crichlow, V. J., & Smykla, J. O. (2017). Community perceptions of police body-worn cameras: The impact of views on fairness, fear, performance, and privacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 20(10), 1–22.Google Scholar
  4. Hamm, J. A., Trinkner, R., & Carr, J. D. (2017). Fair process, trust, and cooperation: Moving toward an integrated framework of police legitimacy. Criminal Justice and Behavior, 44(9), 1183–1212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Hawdon, J., & Ryan, J. (2011). Neighborhood organizations and resident assistance to police. Sociological Forum, 26, 897–920.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hedberg, E. C., Katz, C. M., & Choate, D. E. (2016). Body-worn cameras and citizen interactions with police officers: estimating plausible effects given varying compliance levels. Justice Quarterly, 1–24.Google Scholar
  7. International Association of Chiefs of Police (2014). Model policy for body-worn cameras. Retrieved from
  8. Kalvin, H., & Zeisel, H. (1966). The American jury. Boston: Little, Brown, and Company.Google Scholar
  9. Katz, C. M., Choate, D. E., Ready, J. R., & Nuño, L. (2015). Evaluating the impact of officer worn body cameras in the Phoenix police department. Phoenix, AZ: Center for Violence Prevention & Community safety, Arizona State University.Google Scholar
  10. Lafayette Group (2015). Major Cities Chiefs and Major Counties Sheriffs Survey of Technology Needs – Body Worn Cameras. Retrieved from
  11. Lin, R. (2016). Police body worn cameras and privacy: retaining benefits while reducing public concerns. Duke Law & Technology Review, 14(1), 346–365.Google Scholar
  12. Maury, K. J. (2016). Police body-worn camera policy: balancing the tension between privacy and public access in state law. Notre Dame Law Review, 92(1), 479–512.Google Scholar
  13. Miller, L., Toliver, J., & Police Executive Research Forum (2014). Implementing a body-worn camera program: recommendations and lessons learned. Washington, DC: Office of Community Oriented Policing Services.Google Scholar
  14. Pickett, J. T., Nix, J., & Roche, S. P. (2018). Testing a social schematic model of police procedural justice. Social Psychology Quarterly, 81, 97–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Reisig, M. D., & Lloyd, C. (2009). Procedural justice, police legitimacy, and helping the police fight crime: Results from a survey of Jamaican adolescents. Police Quarterly, 12, 42–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Simmons, K. C. (2015). Body-mounted police cameras. A primer on police accountability vs. privacy. Howard Law Journal, 58, 881–890.Google Scholar
  17. Tyler, T. R., & Fagan, J. (2008). Legitimacy and cooperation: why do people help the police fight crime in their communities? Ohio State Journal of Criminal Law, 6, 231–277.Google Scholar
  18. White, M. D., Gaub, J. E., & Todak, N. (2017). Exploring the potential for body-worn cameras to reduce violence in police-citizen encounters. Policing, 1–11.Google Scholar
  19. Young, J. T. N., & Ready, J. (2016). A longitudinal analysis of the relationship between administrative policy, technological preferences, and body-worn camera activation among police officers. Policing, 12, 27–42.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature B.V. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Criminal JusticeMichigan State UniversityE. LansingUSA
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyUniversity of Nebraska-LincolnLincolnUSA
  3. 3.Douglas County Public Defender’s OfficeOmahaUSA
  4. 4.Bureau of Business Research; College of BusinessUniversity of NebraskaLincolnUSA

Personalised recommendations