Evidence of the camera perspective bias in authentic videotaped interrogations: Implications for emerging reform in the criminal justice system

Abstract

Objective. Numerous previous experiments have established the existence of a camera perspective bias in evaluations of videotaped interrogations/confessions: videotapes that make the suspect more visually conspicuous than the interrogator(s) by virtue of focusing the camera on the suspect yield assessments of voluntariness and judgments of guilt that are greater than those found when alternative presentation formats are used. One limitation of this body of research is that all the interrogations/confessions used to date were simulations; therefore, no evidence currently demonstrates that the camera perspective bias importantly generalizes to authentic videotapes recorded by police and depicting actual suspects and interrogators. Two experiments addressed this issue.Methods. Experiment 1 compared judgments of voluntariness based on viewing two authentic videotaped confessions -one recorded with the camera focused on the suspect, the other with the camera focused equally on the suspect and interrogator -with those based on listening only to the audio or reading only a transcript. Experiment 2 compared judgments of voluntariness and guilt of an originally equal-focus videotaped confession that was edited to produce suspect-focus and interrogator-focus versions.Results. In Experiment 1, participants judged the videotape version of the confession to be more voluntary than either the audio only or transcript versions, but only for the suspect-focus videotape. In Experiment 2, participants viewing the suspect-focus version of the confession (relative to the interrogator-focus version) judged it to be more voluntary and the suspect more likely to be guilty.Conclusion. The present research further strengthens the policy implications of the literature on camera perspective bias by providing evidence that the bias manifests with authentic interrogations/confessions as well as with simulations.

Judge No Evil, See No Evil: Do People’s Moral Choices Influence to Whom They Visually Attend?

“…Specifically, when viewing videotapes of suspects' police interviews, the viewpoint the video takes (i.e. facing either the suspect or the police officer) influenced people's judgements about the degree to which a confession was given voluntarily, the likelihood that the suspect was guilty and the severity of the punishment s/he should receive (Lassiter and Irvine 1986;Lassiter et al 2001;) -even when it involved actual suspect interview footage (Lassiter et al 2009) in real life trial situations and even when the viewers were judges and police interrogators (Lassiter et al 2007). Later research revealed that this effect was largely a function of which person (the suspect or the police officer) the viewer had attended to the most -when allowed to view both equally (from the side), which of the two people the viewer looked at the longest was a complete mediator of the effect (Ware et al 2008).…”

Guilty While Innocent: A Review on False Confession Phenomenon in the Criminal Justice System

“…Şüphelilerin suçlu olup olmadığına ilişkin kararlar kameranın görüş açısının kime odaklandığına bağlı olarak değişebilmektedir. Örneğin, kameranın sorguyu yapanı da gösterdiği duruma kıyasla sadece şüpheliyi gösterdiği durumda karar vericiler soruşturma ortamının baskı/zorlama içermediğine, şüphelinin itirafı polis baskısı olmadan gönüllü bir şekilde verdiğine ve şüphelinin suçlu olduğuna daha çok inanma eğiliminde olmaktadır (Lassiter, Geers, Handley, Weiland ve Munhall, 2002;Lassiter, Geers, Munhall, Handley ve Beers, 2001;Lassiter ve Irvine, 1986;Lassiter, Ware, Ratcliff ve Irvin, 2009). Üstelik, bu etki yalnızca sıradan katılımcılar için değil polisler ve yargıçlar için de geçerli görünmektedir (Lassitter, Diamond, Schmidt ve Elek, 2007).…”

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

“…For example, individual differences in the motivation to think effortfully (Lassiter, Slaw, Briggs, & Scanlan, 1992) and in the capacity to reason specifically about complex causal relationships (Lassiter et al, 2005) do not moderate the camera perspective bias, nor is it reduced by situationally increasing observers' sense of accountability for their judgments (Lassiter, Munhall, Geers, Weiland, & Handley, 2001b). The bias has also been shown to occur across various types of crime (Lassiter et al, 1992), in the context of realistic trial simulations (Lassiter, Geers, Handley, Weiland, & Munhall, 2002b), with samples of college students and community members from disparate backgrounds (Lassiter et al, 2002b), and with authentic videotaped confessions recorded by police that depict actual suspects and interrogators (Lassiter, Ware, Ratcliff, & Irvin, 2009). Finally, relevant expertise does not mitigate the bias: both highly experienced trial judges and veteran police interrogators fall prey to it (Lassiter, Diamond, Schmidt, & Elek, 2007).…”