Body-worn camera (BWC) footage is expected to be objective, thereby improving transparency. But can other information about an incident affect how people perceive BWC footage? In two experiments, we examined the effects of officer-generated misinformation and outcome information on people’s memory for an event. Participants viewed BWC footage and/or read an officer’s report containing misleading information. Some participants learned the officer was punished, some that the citizen was arrested. Participants then answered questions exploring their memory for the facts, the extent to which they relied on the officer’s misinformation in judging who was at fault, and their impressions of the officer and civilian. Even when participants saw the BWC footage, their conclusions were consistent with the officer’s misinformation. Moreover, participants’ attitudes toward police predicted their interpretation of the footage, suggesting BWC footage is unlikely to be perceived objectively. We explain our results in terms of misinformation effects and confirmation bias.

Now more than ever, people have access to police footage, yet people still disagree about what some footage depicts. This is not surprising given that research on attention, perception, and memory demonstrates that motivations, biases, and context shape what people see and remember. However, we do not know whether people are attuned to the fact that their understanding and memory of observed criminal encounters may be biased. Moreover, we do not know how people think about laypeople’s and police officers’ ability to view such events objectively. We examined these beliefs by asking participants to imagine that they themselves, an average American or an average police officer, viewed a criminal event live, with police body-worn camera (BWC) footage or with surveillance footage. Participants provided ratings for each observer’s susceptibility to bias. Importantly, we found a bias blind spot (Pronin, Lin, & Ross, 2002) for people’s ratings of themselves and—depending on participants’ attitudes toward police—police officers. People denied that biases would influence their own and officers’ inferences and memory for a criminal encounter, but they did not give the average American the same benefit. Moreover, participants rated officers as being the least biased after they watched their BWC footage, demonstrating that people perceive BWCs to be an extension of what officers see. We explore the implications our results have for policies concerning BWC footage and disagreements that may arise when people assume that they and police are more objective than others.

Now more than ever, body cameras, surveillance footage, dash-cam footage, and bystanders with phones enable people to see for themselves officer and civilian behavior and determine the justifiability of officers' actions. This paper examines whether the camera perspective from which people watch police encounters influences the conclusions that people draw. Consistent with recent findings showing that body camera footage leads people to perceive officers' actions as less intentional (Turner, Caruso, Dilich, & Roese, 2019), our first study demonstrates that participants who watched body-camera footage, compared with people who watched surveillance footage of the same encounter, perceived the officer's behavior as being more justified and made more lenient punishment decisions. In our second study, only one of the four police encounters that participants watched led participants to perceive the officer more favorably when they watched body-camera footage compared with bystander footage. Our results demonstrate that some body-camera footage-specifically videos that capture an officer using his or her body to apprehend a civilian-can lead to biased perceptions of police encounters that benefit the officer. Our findings suggest that this occurs because:(i) in body-camera footage, the civilian is the more easily visible figure, thus making less salient the officer's role in the encounter; and (ii) the body camera-attached to an officer's uniform-is unable to adequately capture certain use of force movements that are important in determining an officer's intent.

This paper examines contamination in interrogations: the process by which an interrogator divulges privileged information to a suspect. Hypotheses: In Experiment 1, we predicted that mock investigators would communicate critical crime details when they interview mock suspects about a crime-and that innocent and guilty suspects alike would later produce confessions that contained these details. In Experiment 2, we hypothesized that observers who listened only to the confessions would exhibit a greater guilt bias than those who also had exposure to the eliciting interview. Method: Experiment 1 (N ϭ 59) used student participants in a mock crime scenario to test whether contamination is natural to communication even in the absence of external incentives. In Experiment 2, MTurk participants (N ϭ 499) listened to audio-clips from Experiment 1 to test whether presenting observers with the full interview decreases guilt ratings for false confessors. Results: Investigators divulged crime information to both innocent and guilty suspects, and even false confessions later included accurate details. Although Experiment 2 observers exhibited a guilt bias, exposure to the interview (not just the confession) attenuated this effect for innocent confessors. Conclusions: The information disclosure associated with contamination is a normal cognitive process that occurs even without external incentives to secure a confession. Experiment 2 showed that seeing contamination in action may decrease judgments of guilt for innocent suspects. Interrogations should be recorded in their entirety to provide fact finders with an objective record of the source of crime details contained within narrative confessions. Public Significance StatementThese results provide a preliminary understanding of how contamination occurs as part of a natural communicative process. Importantly, they suggest that lay observers can become sensitive to false confessions given the right information. This is a significant finding because contaminated false confessions often appear to indicate the suspect's guilt, even when the suspect is truly innocent.

We tested whether people are attuned to critical memory factors, such as age at the timing of encoding and hedge words when judging the credibility of testimony. In two experiments, participants read a 19-year-old's testimony regarding a sexual assault.We manipulated whether participants learned that the assault occurred 4 years ago (when the claimant was 15 years old) or 15 years ago (when the claimant was 4 years old) and whether the claimant used hedge words in her testimony. In Experiment 2, we included a cross-examination. Without the cross-examination, participants rated the testimony as more credible when the assault had occurred 15 years ago. However, with the inclusion of a cross-examination, participants rated the testimony more reliable when the event occurred 4 years ago and the claimant did not use hedge words. We discuss the implications our results have, particularly for historical cases, where memory is a key factor.