Advertisement

Security Journal

, Volume 30, Issue 3, pp 703–716 | Cite as

Predicting criminal incidents on the basis of non-verbal behaviour: The role of experience

  • David CrundallEmail author
  • Lauren Eyre-Jackson
Original Article

Abstract

Do experienced police officers have a superior ability to detect impending criminal acts? In order to test this Hypothesis 10 Closed Circuit Television (CCTV) clips were collected from real criminal events that occurred in and around Nottingham City Centre in the UK. Ten control clips were filmed specifically or chosen from existing footage to match the criminal clips, but did not contain any criminal activity. All clips ended abruptly, immediately before a real criminal act unfolding, or a non-criminal act in the control clips, and either the screen turned black, masking the video scene, or remained frozen on the final frame of the edited clip. Thirty police officers and 30 control participants watched the clips. At the end of each clip, participants were asked to predict what would happen next. Signal detection analysis indicated marginal evidence that police show greater accuracy in predicting clips that cut to a black screen compared with the general public. A stronger effect was noted in the analysis of the criterion, with police officers much more likely to predict a crime regardless of whether there was one. These findings provide promising evidence of experiential differences between police officers and the general public when identifying criminal and antisocial behaviour in CCTV footage, though the greater criterion bias effect suggests that experience may oversensitise individuals to non-verbal cues.

Keywords

situation awareness criminal behaviour prediction 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Kevin Bond and all the staff at Woodlands Surveillance Control Room for their assistance in obtaining the stimuli. We would also like to thank all the police officers and participants who took part in this study.

References

  1. Akehurst, L., Köhnken, G., Vrij, A. and Bull, R. (1996) Lay persons’ and police officers’ beliefs regarding deceptive behaviour. Applied Cognitive Psychology 10(6): 461–471.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bar, M. (2003) A cortical mechanism for triggering top-down facilitation in visual object recognition. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience 15(4): 600–609.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bar, M. (2004) Visual objects in context. Nature Reviews: Neuroscience 5(8): 617–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Blair, J. and Kooi, B. (2004) The gap between training and research in the detection of deception. International Journal of Police Science and Management 6(2): 77–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Blechko, A., Darker, I.T. and Gale, A.G. (2008) Skills in detecting gun carrying from CCTV. Proceedings of the 42nd IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology, IEEE: Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 265–271.Google Scholar
  6. Cheung, O.S. and Bar, M. (2012) Visual prediction and perceptual expertise. International Journal of Psychophysiology 83(2): 156–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crundall, D., Clarke, D., Ward, P. and Bartle, C. (2008) Car Drivers’ Skills and Attitudes to Motorcycle Safety. London: Department for Transport.Google Scholar
  8. Darker, I., Gale, A., Ward, L. and Blechko, A. (2007) Can CCTV reliably detect gun crime? Proceedings of the 41st IEEE International Carnahan Conference on Security Technology, IEEE: Prague, Czech Republic, pp. 264–271.Google Scholar
  9. Endsley, M.R. (2000) Theoretical underpinnings of situation awareness: A critical review. In: M.R. Endsley and D.J. Garland (eds.) Situation Awareness Analysis and Measurement. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  10. Garrido, E., Masip, J. and Herrero, C. (2004) Police officers’ credibility judgments: Accuracy and estimated ability. International Journal of Psychology 39(4): 254–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Grant, D. and Williams, D. (2011) The importance of perceiving social contexts when predicting crime and antisocial behaviour in CCTV images. Legal and Criminological Psychology 16(2): 307–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Jackson, L., Chapman, P. and Crundall, D. (2009) What happens next? Predicting other road users’ behaviour as a function of driving experience and processing time. Ergonomics 52(2): 154–164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Johnson, K.E. and Mervis, C.B. (1998) Impact of intuitive theories on feature recruitment throughout the continuum of expertise. Memory and Cognition 26(2): 382–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Johnson, R.R. (2007) Race and police reliance on suspicious non-verbal cues. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management 30(2): 277–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Klein, G.A., Calderwood, R. and Clinton-Cirocco, A. (1986) Rapid decision making on the fireground. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 30th Annual Meeting, 1, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 576–580.Google Scholar
  16. Stanislaw, H. and Todorov, N. (1999) Calculation of signal detection theory measures. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments and Computers 31(1): 137–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Stromwall, L. and Granhag, P. (2003) How to detect deception? Arresting the beliefs of police officers, prosecutors and judges. Psychology Crime & Law 9(1): 19–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Tanaka, J.W. and Taylor, M. (1991) Object categories and expertise: Is the basic level in the eye of the beholder? Cognitive Psychology 23: 457–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Torralba, A., Oliva, A., Castelhano, M.S. and Henderson, J.M. (2006) Contextual guidance of eye movements and attention in real-world scenes: The role of global features in object search. Psychological review 113(4): 766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Troscianko, T., Holmes, A., Stillman, J., Mirmehdi, M., Wright, D. and Wilson, A. (2004) What happens next? The predictability of natural behaviour viewed through CCTV cameras. Perception 33(1): 87–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Vogel, K., Kircher, A., Alm, H. and Nilsson, L. (2003) Traffic sense – Which factors influence the skill to predict the development of traffic scenes? Accident Analysis and Prevention 35(5): 749–762.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Vrij, A. and Semin, G. (1996) Lie experts’ beliefs about non-verbal indicators of deception. Journal of Non-verbal Behavior 20(1): 65–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Walczyk, J.J., Griffith, D.A., Yates, R., Visconte, S.R., Simoneaux, B. and Harris, L.L. (2012) Lie detection by inducing cognitive load: Eye movements and other cues to the false answers of false answers of ‘witnesses’ to crimes. Criminal Justice and Behavior 39(7): 887–909.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Wijn, R., van den Berg, H. and Lousberg, M. (2013) On operator effectiveness: The role of expertise and familiarity of environment on the detection of deviant behaviour. Personal Ubiquitous Computing 17(1): 35–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Division of Psychology, School of Social Sciences, Nottingham Trent UniversityNottinghamUK

Personalised recommendations