Viewing police body-worn camera video of use-of-force incidents: Does repeated or slow-motion viewing matter?
Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 26, 2026
Virtual Hand with Ambiguous Movement between the Self and Other Origin: Sense of Ownership and 'Other-Produced' Agency
Published on: October 28, 2020
Grant P Dunn1, Daniel Reisberg2, Kathy Pezdek1
1Department of Psychology, Claremont Graduate University.
Objective:
Determine if repeated or slow-motion viewing of body-worn camera videos of police use-of-force incidents influences viewers' assessments.
Hypotheses:
Participants are more likely to agree that officers' beliefs about danger in a situation were reasonable after repeated viewings and when a viewing is in slow motion.
Method:
In two preregistered experiments (N = 304 and 299), participants, recruited using the online survey recruitment platform Prolific, viewed body-worn camera video footage of four actual police use-of-force incidents in which the suspect was either armed or unarmed. Each incident was viewed three times. The first and third viewings were at regular speed. The second viewing of each incident was either in slow motion or at regular speed. After each viewing, participants rated their agreement with the statement that the officer had reason to believe there was an immediate danger to themselves or others when they shot the suspect.
Results:
After multiple viewings, participants were more likely to agree that an officer's beliefs about danger in a situation were reasonable when the suspect was armed but not when they were unarmed (ηp² = .67 and .71). Viewing these videos in slow motion amplified the increase in agreement that there was danger in the situation when the video showed an armed suspect, but this effect was inconsistent.
Conclusions:
Viewing body-worn camera footage multiple times changed viewers' agreement that the officer's beliefs about danger were reasonable. These findings have implications for how unbiased assessments of police use-of-force incidents should be conducted, with a focus on whether these assessments adhere to the U.S. standard set out in Graham v. Connor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).
