Camera perspective bias in videotaped confessions: Evidence that visual attention is a mediator.

Abstract

Several experiments have demonstrated a camera perspective bias in evaluations of videotaped confessions: videotapes with the camera focused on the suspect lead to judgments of greater voluntariness than alternative presentation formats. The present research investigated potential mediators of this bias. Using eye tracking to measure visual attention, Experiment 1 replicated the bias and revealed that changes in camera perspective are accompanied by corresponding changes in duration of fixation on the suspect and interrogator. A path analysis indicated that visual attention partially mediated the bias, with at least one additional factor independently contributing to it. A proposed second factor was changes in available visual content that naturally coincide with alterations in camera perspective. Experiment 2 directly manipulated observers' focus and thus more conclusively established visual attention as one mediator of the camera perspective bias. Together the two experiments provide plausible evidence that differences in visual content may also mediate the bias.

Camera perspective and trivial details interact to influence jurors' evaluations of a retracted confession

“…As explained earlier, this effect may occur because (a) observers visually attend to the more salient individual within the scene and also judge that person as having a more causal role (Lassiter, Beers et al, 2002;Taylor & Fiske, 1978) and (b) observers use visual content within the video to assess voluntariness, and content varies with camera perspective (Ware et al, 2008). Thus, when the focus was on the defendant, our jurors assigned him more responsibility for choosing to confess, which in turn made his statement seem more likely authentic and more incriminating.…”

“…This effect may be caused by two factors (Ware, Lassiter, Patterson, & Ransom, 2008). First, observers tend to direct their visual attention toward the individual on whom the camera is focused and to 'overestimate the causal role of the individual who is most visually prominent' (Lassiter, Beers et al, 2002, p. 267), as suggested by social attribution research (e.g.…”

Innocent until Primed: Mock Jurors' Racially Biased Response to the Presumption of Innocence

“…While the current experiment does not allow for a direct test of the positive or negative consequence of priming, converging evidence from other sources suggests that this attentional bias is likely negative. Attention to Black faces has been linked with threat perception [24] and, in legal settings, similar attention effects have promoted perceptions of guilt [25]. Indeed, activating the social category Black has been demonstrated to have negative consequences on legal judgments [12].…”

Videotaped interrogations and confessions: does a dual‐camera approach yield unbiased and accurate evaluations?

“…Geller, 1992). Equal-focus videotapes yield less biased evaluations because neither the suspect nor interrogator is more visually conspicuous, and therefore neither one draws a disproportionate amount of observers' visual attention (Lassiter et al, 2002c;Ware, Lassiter, Patterson, & Ransom, 2008). An alternative method of making the suspect and interrogator equally prominent in observers' visual fields is to record each one with a separate camera positioned so that face-on views can be captured of both.…”