Introduction: This study is aimed at gaining more insight into the effects of camera-surveillance on behavior. It investigates the effects of three different ways of “framing” camera presence on cheating behavior and pro-social behavior. First, we explore the effect of presenting the camera as the medium through which an intimidating authority watches the participant. Second, we test the effect of presenting the camera as being a neutral, non-intimidating viewer. Third, we investigate the effect of watching oneself via a camera. In contrast to most studies on camera surveillance, we will conduct our experiments in an indoor setting. We also explore possible interaction effects of personality traits; we measured Locus of Control, Need for Approval, Self-Monitoring and Social Value Orientation.Methods: In this experiment participated 86 students, randomly distributed over four conditions: three different ways of framing the camera presence, plus a control condition. Our main dependent variables were various kinds of cheating and pro-social behavior. We established the participant's relevant personality traits using a classification tree.Results: For cheating behavior, findings showed that in the “authorative” way of framing camera presence and in the situation in which participants viewed themselves, participants cheated significantly less compared to a situation without camera-surveillance. We did not find significant effects of camera surveillance on pro-social behavior. Looking at personality traits, we found an indication that people with an internal locus of control are more inclined to cheat when there is no camera present compared to people with an external locus of control. However, the effects of our manipulations were stronger.Conclusion: Our findings support the idea that the framing of a camera's presence does indeed influence cheating behavior, adding to the preventive effects of camera-surveillance. Additionally, this study provides some valuable insights into the influence of camera presence on behavior in general.

Purpose This study aimed at gaining more insight into the combined influence of environmental factors and personal vulnerability to environmental cues on cheating behaviour in a task‐related indoor setting. We propose that a disorderly environment increases cheating as it implicitly signals that undesirable behaviours are common. Camera presence is expected to buffer these effects. We included locus of control (LOC) as a personality variable, as we expected individuals with an external LOC to be more susceptible by environmental cues. Methods Seventy‐six students participated in a 2 (orderly vs. disorderly environment) × 2 (camera vs. no camera present) experiment with cheating as the main dependent variable. We established the individual participant's LOC (Rotter, 1966, Psychol. Monogr., 80, 1) in a separate session. Results Findings did indeed show that individuals with an external LOC cheated more in a disorderly rather than an orderly environment. We also found an interaction effect with LOC suggesting this effect was particularly present for participants having an external rather than internal LOC. Camera presence did not yield significant main or interaction effects. Conclusion These findings confirm the importance of environmental design for behaviour regulation as well as the moderating influence of personality makeup.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract