Predictors of police body-worn camera acceptance: digging deeper into officers’ perceptions

Abstract

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine individual-level factors related to police body-worn camera (BWC) acceptance. Design/methodology/approach Surveys were completed by 119 officers from one northwestern police agency a year after BWC deployment. Relationships between demographics, job characteristics, cultural attitudes, organizational justice perceptions and BWC acceptance were examined. Findings Supervisors, as well as officers who had worn BWCs longer, worked the most active patrol shifts, and viewed their supervisors as critical, reported more BWC acceptance. Other indicators of culture and organizational justice were not significant. Originality/value BWCs offer many benefits, but to realize these outcomes officers must accept and use the technology. Research shows wide variations in officer acceptance of BWCs. These findings suggest some officers view BWCs as helpful in dealing with job stressors, including supervisory responsibilities, high volumes of calls and critical supervisors, and tend to grow more accepting of them over time.

The impact of general police officer outlooks on their attitudes toward body-worn cameras

“…To date, only one BWC study has included any of these policing outlooks. Todak and Gaub (2019), using POPN measures, found no relationship between officers who valued aggressive patrol behavior and their acceptance of BWC. Officers who believed that citizens were cooperative had a positive view of body cameras, and more experience using a camera was related to acceptance.…”

“…Further, the survey asked police respondents their views regarding general law enforcement issues as well as their perceptions of the citizens in their work areas. Thus, rather than compare officer characteristics, their various opinions of BWC or where they work, with their acceptance of BWC, this research included broad measures of policing outlooks (see also Todak and Gaub, 2019).…”

Gender composition and agency decision-making: female officers' effect on body-worn camera acquisition

“…Specifically related to this study is examining the link between gender diversity and accountability in policing through both quantitative and qualitative efforts. While current research has started to examine how personal differences can influence whether officers accept and use BWCs (Jennings et al , 2014; Todak and Gaub, 2019), a “black-box” exists where more research is needed to understand the casual mechanism by which gender representation leads to change. Moreover, it is important to explore the relationship between women in leadership positions and the adoption of BWCs in addition to other types of accountability mechanisms.…”

High‐Stakes Administrative Discretion: What Drives Body‐Worn Camera Activations?

“…Adams and Mastracci (2019b) confirm perceived organizational support mediates burnout experienced by officers equipped with BWCs. Perceptions of organizational justice also shape BWC attitudes (Kyle and White 2017), though three other studies (Huff, Katz, and Webb 2018; Lawshe et al 2018; Todak and Gaub 2019) find no link. Adams and Mastracci (2019a) sidestep whether officers like BWCs and instead construct the Perceived Intensity of Monitoring (PIM) scale, which captures officer perceptions on professional discretion, the capture of personal or embarrassing information by cameras, and the degree to which officer interests are taken into account when releasing footage publicly.…”

“…Lum et al (2019) identify at least 32 articles investigating officer attitudes toward BWCs, up from 13 studies reviewed four years earlier (Lum et al 2015). The officer-attitude literature consistently finds that as officers gain experience with BWCs, their perceptions become more positive despite early skepticism and negativity (Fouche 2014;Gaub et al 2016;Jennings, Fridell, and Lynch 2014;Snyder, Crow, and Smykla 2019;Todak and Gaub 2019;White, Todak, and Gaub 2018). Officers may find BWCs useful in public complaint and internal affairs investigations (Fouche 2014;Goetschel and Peha 2017;Owens and Finn 2017;Pelfrey and Keener 2016), evidence collection (Gaub, Todak, and White 2018;White et al 2018), and improving job performance (Gramagila and Phillips 2017).…”