Vol.:(0123456789) Journal of Experimental Criminology (2024) 21:1215–1237 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-024-09627-8 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual warning of body‑worn cameras on the use of police force Noy Assaraf1 · Alejandro Mouro2 · Donald M. Papy3 · Noel Castillo3 · Barak Ariel1,4 Accepted: 6 June 2024 / Published online: 4 July 2024 © The Author(s) 2024 Abstract Objectives  Research on police body-worn cameras (BWCs) draws attention to the need for suspects to be aware of the devices for them to exert a deterrent, “civilising effect”, which can manifest as a reduction in the use of force in police-public inter- actions. This awareness can be manipulated audibly, visually, or both, yet no trials exist to test a visual stimulus that increases awareness of BWCs relative to BWCs without this function. In this field experiment, we test the effect of a visual warning of BWCs on use-of-force incidence. Methods  A six-month cluster-randomised controlled trial involving spatiotemporal police units was conducted in Miami Beach, USA. The units were randomly assigned to the experimental group, which included officers who wore BWCs featuring multiple yellow stickers and “VIDEO & AUDIO” logo (used as a visual warning). Officers in the control group were equipped with BWCs without yellow stickers. Neither group was required to announce the presence of the BWCs, thus isolating the visual warning from the audial warning. Poisson regression models estimate the treatment effect, with confirmatory subgroup analyses based on the proactive versus reactive interactions. Results  Statistically significant differences in the use of force by officers, but in the contrary direction: higher rate of use of force due to equipping officers with BWCs with yellow stickers relative to BWCs without the yellow stickers. Relative change analysis indicates that yellow stickers cause an increase in the rate of use of force in incidents involving proactive policing, with a less pronounced increase in reactive policing. Conclusion  Without contextualising their use to citizens, raising awareness of the presence of BWCs can aggravate police-public encounters. * Noy Assaraf noy.assaraf@mail.huji.ac.il 1 Institute of Criminology, Faculty of Law, Hebrew University, Mount Scopus, 91905 Jerusalem, Israel 2 Miami Beach Police Department, Miami Beach, Florida, USA 3 Adjunct Faculty, University of Miami School of Law, Coral Gables, Florida, USA 4 Institute of Criminology, University of Cambridge, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, UK http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1007/s11292-024-09627-8&domain=pdf 1216 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 Keywords  Body-worn cameras · Use of force · Awareness · Visual warning · Police · Clustered randomised controlled trial Introduction The need to reduce aggression in police-public encounters is widely perceived as a grave public concern (Longridge et al., 2023). Body-worn cameras (BWCs) have been proposed as a measure to mitigate the occurrence of the use of force by law enforcement authorities and have rapidly proliferated in police agencies worldwide (Ariel et al., 2015; Lum et al., 2019; Miller & Chillar, 2022; Petersen et  al., 2021). Consequently, over the past decade, numerous studies have been conducted to explore the various effects of BWCs, as outlined in the latest sys- tematic review by Williams et al. (2021). One central conclusion that has emerged is the importance of ensuring that individuals are made aware that an officer is wearing a camera (Choi et al., 2023; Demir et al., 2020; White et al., 2017), and even recommending that law enforcement verbally inform citizens about the pres- ence of BWCs during encounters (Demir, 2023). However, the efficacy of visual warnings alerting individuals of BWCs remains underexplored. Research has shown that signage advertising CCTV surveillance can constrain behaviour (Piza et al., 2019; Ratcliffe & Rosenthal, 2021). Never- theless, we are unaware of any comparable studies investigating the utility of sig- nage indicating the presence of BWCs in police-citizen encounters and its effect on behaviour. This knowledge gap is particularly relevant as, in tense situations, a police officer might overlook informing citizens about the camera, necessitat- ing the visual warning as a supplementary measure to the verbal notification. A visual cue could enhance awareness and, thus, reduce the use of force; however, this is a logical rather than an evidence-informed conclusion. The present experiment aims to address this gap by assessing the effectiveness of visual warnings regarding BWCs in reducing the incidence of use of force, compared to situations where BWCs are present without a visual warning. Impor- tantly, we were also able to control for the effect of the audial warning; the police officers participating in this study were not instructed to proactively announce the presence of the cameras, as they often do elsewhere. Below, we report the results of this study. Literature review Use of force The use of force by police has received significant attention across various aca- demic fields. This scholarly interest underscores the considerable dedication of practitioners and decision-makers to gaining a deeper understanding of how law 1217 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… enforcement agencies exercise their authority and how this power can be effec- tively managed. The public expects that the police will employ force when cir- cumstances deem it “necessary” and “reasonable” to achieve “legitimate objec- tives” (Alpert & Smith, 1994). In practice, a defining attribute of policing is the application of necessary and reasonable force in a variety of disorderly situations that may not be desired or anticipated by the public. It remains unclear what constitutes a “police use of force”, how much force is “too much”, at what point it becomes excessive, exaggerated, or unnecessary, and who insti- gates the aggressive beyond what is required. Existing tracking systems for the police use of force are not entirely valid or reliable, due to the subjective nature of determin- ing the necessary force in a given situation (Ariel et al., 2016a), and the fact that use of force is nearly entirely self-recorded by only one party: the involved officers. What is clear is that law enforcement’s legal and ethical duty is to uphold social order, and using force is an indispensable requirement in specific situations, par- ticularly when dealing with certain offenders (Ariel et  al., 2015). A police officer can use force when there is an imminent threat to public safety or their own, or when the encounter necessitates the application of physical power (Longridge et al., 2023). In practice, they use these powers rarely — and within these extraordinary circumstances, officers responding disproportionately or unnecessarily with “force” to tense incidents with civilians is even more uncommon (Harrell & Davis, 2020; Adams et al., 1999). Despite their rarity, these incidents have dramatic repercussions beyond the indi- vidual encounter and can harm the relationship between the public and the law. Consequently, law enforcement agencies aim to minimise the necessity of applying force, recognising that doing so can improve public perceptions of the police and, in the process, enhance the efficiency of policing efforts (Ariel et al., 2016a). BWCs BWCs were initially proposed as a measure to de-escalate heated situations and pre- vent aggressive encounters. Over the past decade, numerous communities have wit- nessed incidents of police shootings and deaths in police custody, as well as citizen protests and calls for improved police transparency and accountability. These events have spurred law enforcement agencies’ rapid adoption of BWCs worldwide, with the hope that these cameras would contribute to improved police conduct, transpar- ency, and accountability, especially concerning the use of force (Lum et al., 2020). The cameras capture and store recordings of police interactions with suspects, witnesses, or victims (Ariel, 2016a; Ariel et  al., 2018a, b). Although BWCs may come in various forms, they generally share two primary goals. Firstly, they aim to record the engagement and by doing so, to discourage escalations through deter- rence of both parties. Secondly, they have utility throughout the criminal justice system. For example, BWCs footage can be used as incriminating or exonerating evidence (Petersen & Lu, 2023) as well as civil litigations (Powell, 2023); they can improve witnesses’ accurate recall of events (Newell & Koen, 2023), and various other applications unavailable just a decade ago (Petersen et al., 2023). 1218 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 There has been widespread adoption of BWCs technology by police departments worldwide, which mirrors a growing body of evaluation research on the impacts of BWCs (e.g., Ariel et al., 2015; Jennings et al., 2015; see reviews in Lum et al., 2019; 2020). For example, it was found that BWCs lead to a significantly higher likelihood of reporting low-level street crimes (Ariel, 2016a). BWCs were linked to a reduction in citizen complaints against the police (Ariel et al., 2015; 2017) and civilian deaths (Miller & Chillar, 2022). On the other hand, results from several studies suggest that the deployment of BWCs led to an increased rate of assaults against officers who were wearing the cameras (Ariel et  al., 2016b; 2018b) — the inverse of the effect found in non-policing environments, where assaults were found to be reduced (Ariel et al., 2019; Ariel et al., 2024). The authors attribute the increase in assaults in the policing context to officers’ heightened awareness that their actions are being observed, leading to potential excessive self-scrutiny, which may impair their abil- ity to function effectively in high-stress situations. However, Boehme & Schnell (2022:1) recently proposed alternative and more convincing explanations, suggest- ing that the findings may be attributed to officers either reporting use-of-force inci- dents more frequently or feeling more confident using force due to enhanced over- sight (e.g., “I know I am right for applying force”). Given this interest in the potentially civilizing effect of BWCS in policing, one of the studied variables concerning the impact of BWCs is the use of force by offic- ers. However, studies have not provided consistent results. On the one hand, some studies found that BWCs reduce the use of force by officers compared to those with- out BWCs (Ariel et al., 2015; Braga et al., 2018; Henstock & Ariel, 2017; Jennings et al., 2017). For instance, officers with BWCs had a significantly lower percentage of use of force incidents compared to officers without BWCs with a similar number of use of force incidents in the previous year (Groff et al., 2020), for several years later (Sutherland et al., 2017). On the other hand, other studies found no significant differences in the use of force by officers with or without BWCs (Ariel, 2016b; Ariel et al., 2016b; Peterson et al., 2018; Yokum et al., 2017). Given these variations in results, a Campbell systematic review concluded that there is no discernible effect on the behaviours of most police officers or citizens (Lum et al., 2020), but a more recent meta-analysis of the evidence identified a note- worthy decline in police use of force as a result of using BWCs (− 9.6%; CI − 21.3% to + 3.8%; Williams et al., 2021, p. 11–12). (One possible) mechanism behind BWCs Puzzled by such variations in the results, several explanations surfaced. Some argue that the outcome variation has to do with local discretion rules and how police departments use BWCs (Ariel et al., 2016b). As the deterrence effect of BWCs is a function of discretion, weaker discretion is associated with a strong deterrence effect and less forceful police responses (Ariel et al., 2018a). Another explanation is the awareness of the camera, which is the focus of this study. The assumption of BWCs is that when people are aware of the presence of recording devices, it sends a clear signal to everyone involved: “Beware, you are 1219 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… being filmed” (Ariel et al., 2018a, b). This public self-awareness can often improve conduct, as people do not want to get caught on camera for wrongdoing (Miller & Chillar, 2022). Thus, linking BWCs to both civilian and officer behaviour revolves around two complementary theories: self-awareness and deterrence theories (Ariel, 2016a; Ariel et al., 2015; Ariel et al., 2018b). Some recent studies have dealt directly with the psy- chological and practical manifestation of the effect of BWCs (particularly insightful contributions can be found in Bennett et al., 2023; Patterson & White, 2021; Pezdek, 2022). Firstly, studies suggest that people change their behaviour when they are aware that they are being observed (Chartrand & Bargh, 1999; Dzieweczynski et al., 2006; Jones & Nisbett, 1971). In other words, people adhere to social norms, coop- erate with rules, and modify their behaviour due to the awareness of being watched. In the context of BWCs, cameras can induce a “self-awareness effect” that motivates the police officer away from responding with excessive or unnecessary force and simultaneously alleviates the suspect’s aggressive behaviour due to the awareness of being filmed (Ariel et al., 2015; 2017; Ariel, 2016a). The second theory that may explain changes in human behaviour is the crimi- nological deterrence theory (Beccaria, 2008). Deterrence theory emphasises the need for a heightened awareness of someone not only observing our behaviour but also that they will apprehend and punish us for wrongful doing (Ariel et  al., 2018b). According to this theory, supported by a substantial body of research, a higher certainty of being apprehended corresponds to a lower likelihood of engag- ing in socially and morally unacceptable behaviour because people are averse to the risk of getting caught (Nagin, 2013; Pratt et al., 2006; Von Hirsch et al., 1999). As BWCs document police-public interactions, utilising video recordings to provide clearer evidence of inappropriate or criminal behaviour by those involved, the cam- era increases the likelihood of someone being apprehended and functions as a deter- rent against improper behaviour (Ariel et al., 2018a). Evidence broadly supports this deterrent and civilising effect of BWCs in heated police-public encounters (Ariel et al., 2015; Braga et al., 2018; Henstock & Ariel, 2017; Jennings et al., 2017). Awareness of BWCs Thus, BWCs are hypothesised to reduce the number of use-of-force incidents through deterrence and self-awareness, with a complex interplay between these two elements. Yet regardless of the specific causal mechanism — whether deterrence or public self-awareness — there is agreement that those involved in a situation must be cognisant that the police officer is wearing a camera and that the interac- tion is officially recorded (Ariel et al., 2015, 2020; Clare et al., 2019; Demir et al., 2020; Saulnier et al., 2020). Studies comparing officers without BWCs to those who were required to inform individuals that the interaction was being recorded found that informing citizens about the use of BWCs significantly improved their percep- tion of various measures (Ariel et al., 2015, 2020; Clare et al., 2019; Demir et al., 2020; Saulnier et al., 2020), including increased cooperation with law enforcement 1220 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 authorities (Demir et  al., 2020). When law enforcement informs citizens that the encounter is being recorded, it indicates transparency, leading to increased com- pliance from citizens and fairer behaviour from law enforcement (Demir, 2023). Accordingly, White and colleagues (2017) emphasise that most civilians (70.2%) reported a willingness to cooperate more with the police when aware of BWCs. However, the degree of awareness that people have to the devices is still unclear (and may be a function of time). Public awareness of BWCs may occur through three primary avenues: (1) a belief or assumption that officers are required to wear them during encounters; (2) verbal notification by the officer during the encounter that a BWC is in use; (3) visual cues of the camera as perceived by the civilian (Ariel et al., 2019; Demir, 2023). To date, most research on civilian awareness of BWCs during encounters with police has focused on the first two methods. For example, Demir’s study (2023) examined the effects of awareness and notification of BWCs on civilian perceptions across various measures within four groups: non-BWCs, unawareness of BWCs, awareness of BWCs, and notification of BWCs. The results showed that notifica- tion of BWCs use had the most significant impact on civilian perceptions overall, followed by BWC awareness, lack of BWC awareness, and non-BWCs (although there was no significant difference between BWC notification and BWC awareness). Accordingly, notifying individuals about the use of BWCs during an encounter may enhance citizens’ perceptions of law enforcement. Another method for individuals to be aware of the camera involves recognising visual cues displayed on the camera itself. BWCs provide both visual and audio alerts when activated, even when there is no explicit notification to the public that the cam- era is in operation. The camera’s size, audio-visual indicators, and mounting configu- ration convey a message that the encounter is being recorded. However, studies have shown that the public is not always aware that officers are wearing BWCs that are recording (Seguin, 2019; White et al., 2017). This lack of awareness may be attrib- uted to the inconspicuous nature of BWCs used in some public spaces. Many wit- nesses, victims, and suspects struggle to identify BWCs among the various gadgets that modern police officers wear daily (Ariel et al., 2019). The size and colour may also impact the public’s ability to detect the camera. As Timan (2016) pointed out, in the current BWC setup, the actions of aiming and recording may not be recognised by the untrained eye. Not only are the public unaware of the presence of the BWC, but they may also find it challenging to identify it as a camera. Hence, the presence of visual cues of BWCs is of great importance in raising awareness of the camera among the public, ensuring that the mechanisms influencing behaviour take effect. The present study Advertising the presence of CCTV surveillance cameras has been identified as a fac- tor that constrains behaviour (Piza et al., 2019; Ratcliffe & Rosenthal, 2021). This logic stems from the understanding that covert cameras in the public domain are unlikely to deter offenders (Piza et al., 2019). It can be presumed that the presence 1221 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… of a visual warning on BWCs has the potential to increase awareness among civil- ians, leading to greater cooperation with the officer and, consequently, reducing the use of force by officers (Alpert et al., 2004). However, manipulating a visual cue has thus far not been studied in the context of BWCs. Examining the potential of visual warnings of BWCs on the use of force by offic- ers is crucial, as, in tense situations, a police officer might overlook informing citi- zens about the camera, making the visual warning a supplementary measure to the verbal notification, which has proved crucial during an encounter with a civilian (Demir, 2023; Demir et al., 2020). Importantly, to isolate the effect of a visual warn- ing, it should be separated from the verbal warning officers equipped with BWCs usually make when engaging with suspects. To properly test the effect, conditions should involve comparing BWCs with the visual signage to BWCs without the signage while controlling for the effect of warning suspects that their behaviour is being filmed. Under these settings, the current research examines the incidence of use of force by officers through the hypothetical causal chain which we anticipate: The present study attempts to provide an empirical assessment of this hypothesis. Methods Setting The data for the study were obtained from a cluster-randomised controlled trial conducted by the Miami Beach Police Department (MBPD). The trial spanned a six-month intervention period lasting from January 1, 2017, to June 11, 2017 (thus being one of the early adopters of BWCs, when public awareness of these devices was limited relative to more contemporary policing). The city had a residential pop- ulation of approximately 91,000, ranking as the 26th largest city in Florida. Miami Beach is geographically divided into four primary squad areas, representing the northern, central, southern, and entertainment districts. The city’s crime dynamics have historically been influenced by a high volume of nightlife, tourism, and associ- ated drug use and distribution, resulting in more than 8000 index crimes per 100,000 population in 2019 (Petersen et al., 2021). Unit of analysis Thirty-six police spatiotemporal units, comprising the entire frontline officers1of the Miami Beach Police Department, were randomly assigned to one of two groups: BWC + visual warning → awareness increases → suspect�s behavior �� cools down �� → officers do not react aggressively → fewer instances of use of force by officers. 1  Frontline officers refer to all the Miami Beach Police Department Patrol Officers who directly interact with the public and are responsible for maintaining law and order in their assigned areas. 1222 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 (1) Experimental group: officers who wore BWCs featuring yellow stickers labelled “VIDEO & AUDIO” (used for a visual warning); (2) Control group: officers who also wore BWCs but without yellow stickers (see Fig. 1). The study included all officer shifts of the MBPD over the six-month research period. No frontline units, shifts, or events were excluded from the sample, except for incidents involving the use of force within the police station (as opposed to using force during encounters) and specialised operations. The final sample of police-pub- lic contacts included 28,393 recorded interactions during the experimental period, sourced from official police records and the agency’s computerized dispatch system. Unlike prior trials that focused on specific spatial hotspots (Ariel, 2016a), indi- vidual officers (Yokum et al., 2017), or police shifts (Ariel et al., 2020), this study integrated time, space, and police officers (Braga et al., 2021, 2022; Petersen et al., 2021). Specifically, geographic squad areas were grouped by specific shifts and days, creating 36 spatiotemporal units consistent throughout the research period. These were randomly assigned to either the treatment or control group. Further- more, no officers assigned to the experimental group were assigned to the control group. Those assigned to the same area had different working days or shifts, while those assigned to the same days and shifts were located in other areas.2 For some smaller territorial units, the patrol pattern was not executed daily but decided bian- nually by the executive teams. The day and shift components of the experiment included separate shift assignments: day, afternoon, and midnight, and consecutive sets of days, such as Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Wednesday, Thursday, and Fri- day. The included areas covered all four primary squad regions of the city, along Fig. 1   Two types of BWCs — with and without yellow stickers 2  The exception was carried out by special units in Area 3 (North) on Sundays, Mondays, and Tuesdays (SMT). 1223 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… Table 1   Miami Beach territorial policing, clusters randomisation table Days of the week were grouped into sets of consecutive days, including Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday (MTW), Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday (TWT), Wednesday, Thursday, Friday (WTF), Thursday, Friday, Saturday (TFS), Friday, Saturday, Sunday (FSS), Saturday, Sunday, Monday (SSM), Saturday, Sunday (SS), and Sunday, Monday, Tuesday (SMT). Day shifts occurred from 7:00 to 17:00, afternoon shifts from 16:00 to 22:00, and midnight shifts from 21:00 to 8:00 Area Shift time Days of week Condition n of interactions Area 1 (South) Day TWT​ Treatment 1099 Area 1 (South) Day SSM Control 1447 Area 1 (South) Midnight SSM Treatment 1015 Area 1 (South) Midnight TWT​ Control 1926 Area 1 (South) Afternoon SSM Treatment 1457 Area 1 (South) Afternoon TWT​ Control 831 Area 1 (South) Special unit TFS Treatment 1478 Area 1 (South) Special unit SMT Control 1454 Area 2 (Middle) Day FSS Treatment 1042 Area 2 (Middle) Day MTW Control 938 Area 2 (Middle) Midnight MTW Treatment 686 Area 2 (Middle) Midnight FSS Control 1682 Area 2 (Middle) Afternoon MTW Treatment 370 Area 2 (Middle) Afternoon FSS Control 977 Area 2 (Middle) Special unit SS Control 12 Area 2 (Middle) Special unit TFS Control 242 Area 2 (Middle) Special unit SSM Control 116 Area 3 (North) Day TFS Treatment 1035 Area 3 (North) Day MTW Control 926 Area 3 (North) Midnight MTW Treatment 1162 Area 3 (North) Midnight TFS Control 865 Area 3 (North) Afternoon MTW Treatment 820 Area 3 (North) Afternoon TFS Control 966 Area 3 (North) Special unit SMT Treatment 206 Area 3 (North) Special unit SMT Control 128 Area 4 (Entertainment) Day WTF Treatment 519 Area 4 (Entertainment) Day SMT Control 1033 Area 4 (Entertainment) Midnight SMT Treatment 915 Area 4 (Entertainment) Midnight WTF Control 882 Area 4 (Entertainment) Afternoon WTF Treatment 500 Area 4 (Entertainment) Afternoon SMT Control 409 Area 4 (Entertainment) Special unit TFS Treatment 234 Area 4 (Entertainment) Special unit SSM Treatment 248 Area 4 (Entertainment) Special unit FSS Treatment 262 Area 4 (Entertainment) Special unit SMT Control 301 Area 4 (Entertainment) Special unit SSM Control 210 Treatment = 17 Control = 19 Treatment = 13,048 Control = 15,345 1224 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 with several smaller patrol beats within these regions (Petersen et al., 2021). A full randomisation table is presented in Table 1. Randomisation Cluster randomisation, as we have 36 spatiotemporal units, was employed to pre- vent treatment contamination and breach the stable unit treatment value assump- tion (see Braga et al., 2021). This precautionary measure aimed to prevent situa- tions where officers from the experimental and control groups might respond to the same incident (Ariel et al., 2022). To minimise the potential for interaction between the treatment and control groups, all police officers operating within the same geographic area, on the same days and during the same shift, were ran- domly assigned. The police department determined the cluster sizes and patrol time, and the research team was responsible for generating the random allocation sequence, enrolling participants, and assigning participants to intervention. The allocation of squad shift/area/day combinations was performed using a simple random assign- ment generator, ensuring that each unit had an equal probability of being assigned to either the treatment or control group. This procedure resulted in 17 experimental clusters and 19 control clusters. Intervention The independent variable of interest is whether officers wore BWCs featuring yellow stickers labelled “VIDEO & AUDIO” to inform the public of the pres- ence of the camera, or were in the control group (BWCs without the yellow stickers). Crucially, the officers in Miami Beach received three levels of training. First, they were trained on using BWCs by the camera company. Second, they were trained on how to use the BWCs in police operations, with a focus on the guidelines stipu- lated in the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP #152).3 The SOP explicitly does not require officers to announce that they are using BWCs during encounters, a protocol maintained in both the treatment and control conditions. Finally, the officers were given information about the experiment and its purpose.4 3  “6. Employees are not legally obligated to advise people that they are being recorded by the BWC. If asked, employees shall acknowledge that their BWC is recording.” 4  Although all officers received training on the specific field conditions under which to apply the BWCs’ SOPs, it is reasonable to assume that word-of-mouth communication among officers would have rapidly informed them about the ongoing experiment. Consequently, we expect a spillover effect by and between police officers, but not across the randomised units’ conditions. The spatiotemporal clusters aimed to mit- igate some of this bias; however, it is impossible to entirely remove it, as all field trials involving BWCs or similar stimuli are likely susceptible to this issue. 1225 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… Measures Use of force The dependent variable of interest is the use of force by police officers, classified as “yes” or “no” based on officers’ self-reporting, standard practice in most police departments. This variable includes any physical incident regardless of severity, as part of the SOPs, except for verbal violence. Use of force level As mentioned above, our research aimed to determine whether the presence of a visual warning of BWCs affects the occurrence of any use of force by police officers. How- ever, use-of-force incidents encompass a spectrum of situations ranging from low-level confrontations to high-intensity encounters. Given the low incidence of force used in our study as detailed in the next chapter (0.2% compared to 99.8%) and the substan- tial overlap between categories of use of force, analysing levels of force could lead to statistical challenges and potentially unreliable results (small cells of data). Thus, we opted for a binary dependent variable, aligning with established studies (such as Braga et al., 2018). Nevertheless, we recognised the importance of controlling for the type of force used to manage the inherent heterogeneity in these incidents, allowing for a more comprehensive analysis considering the diverse nature of police operations. Hence, we attempted to control for the type of force officers chose to apply: physical, physical/leg sweep, k-9 bite, taser, and physical/taser. Arrest We incorporated the binary variable “arrest” as a covariate in the model. Arrest serves as a contextual factor (Morgan et al., 2020), and it was necessary to control for any confounding effects it might have on the relationship between the sticker and the use of force. Statistical analysis Univariate and then more complex models were analysed with clustered Poisson regression models (based on the spatiotemporal units) to assess group differences. Significant differences were evident between the clusters, implying heterogene- ity and affirming the rationale for employing cluster analysis (Torabi et al., 2019). Group assignment (an experimental group with stickers and a control group without stickers) was set as an explanatory variable, and the dependent variable was whether the use of force occurred. In the more elaborate model, arrest, the use of force, and the encounter initiator variable (proactive/reactive policing) were included. We chose a Poisson regression model because the dependent variable exhib- its a right-skewed distribution (positively skewed distribution), and the variance and mean of our dependent variable were nearly identical (M = 0.001769 and 1226 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 V = 0.001766). We confirmed our choice using a goodness-of-fit test, which showed that the Poisson model is better suited for our data than other approaches.5 Subgroup analyses We observed the effect based on the encounter’s initiator (proactive vs. reactive polic- ing), as this factor can produce different outcomes according to our hypothesised mech- anism. When the officer initiates the encounter (e.g., stop-and-account), it may intro- duce an additional treatment effect compared to situations where officers respond to a received call for service. In the present trial, reactive policing refers to 911 calls, tele- phone calls, walk-ins, and teletypes. Forty-seven percent of the interactions (n = 13,335) were proactive, while 53% (n = 15,058) were reactive policing. We measured relative changes to evaluate differences in the use of force in this analysis. This analysis was conducted separately for the experimental group (with the yellow stickers) and the con- trol group (without the stickers). Table 2 presents an overview of the distribution of encounters across the subgroups in both the control and experimental groups, which provides evidence of the randomisation process producing equivalent groups. Results Unadjusted outcomes During the experimental period, 51 incidents of police use of force were recorded, indicating that in only 0.2% of the police-public encounters, officers applied force.6 Out of the 51 instances of force, 29 cases occurred in the experimental group (0.22% of their encounters), resulting in a rate of 2.2 per 1000 encounters. In contrast, the control group used force in 22 encounters (0.14% of encounters), resulting in a rate Table 2   Distribution of encounters within the experimental arms: proactive versus reactive encounters No stickers (C) With stickers (T) Total Proactive policing 7142 (53.56%) (46.54%) 6193 (46.44%) (47.46%) 13,335 (100%) Reactive policing 8203 (54.48%) (53.48%) 6855 (45.52%) (52.54%) 15,058 (100%) Total 15,345 (100%) 13,048 (100%) 28,393 (N) 6  These findings align with the broad consensus that the rate and frequency of the use of force are low (Alpert et al., 2004; Ariel et al., 2015). 5  Since this data structure allows for two parsing options, in addition to the clustered Poisson regression model discussed in the main text, we conducted a multilevel Poisson analysis to explore potential robust- ness and consistency in our findings. The results from the multilevel Poisson analysis produced simi- lar results to those obtained from the clustered Poisson regression model, indicating that the outcomes were stable across different analytical approaches. However, we ultimately report the cluster analysis as we randomly assigned clusters. For a discussion on these two methods, see Ariel, Bland and Sutherland (2020). 1227 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… of 1.4 per 1000 encounters. Calculating the percentage change between the experi- mental and control groups, the force deployment rate in the experimental group was 57.14% higher than in the control group. Main effects Univariate Poisson regression model We first estimated the treatment effect without any coefficients except the assigned stimulus (Table  3), which mirrored the unadjusted outcomes, with an increase rather than a reduction in the use of force during treatment condi- tions compared to control conditions. The use of a visual warning was found to increase the odds of use of force by 155.03% relative to control conditions, although with a wide margin of error (B = 0.4384; SE = 0.2827; Incident Rate Ratio (IRR) = 1.5503; 95% CI 0.8907, 2.6982). The estimated average mar- ginal effect of a visual warning variable of BWCs on the probability of use of force was 0.07875%, indicating a small increase in the probability of using force when the sticker was present compared to control conditions. Moreover, the estimated N increase, along with the IRR, was 22.38. However, the 95% confidence interval ranged from − 0.0002311 to 0.001806, indicating that the true effect size could be zero. Clustered Poisson regression model Similar results were found under the clustered design but with greater precision of the estimates. We found a statistically significant treatment effect of a visual warning of BWCs on the use of police use of force — but in the opposite direc- tion to the predicted effect. Treatment officers who wore BWCs featuring yel- low stickers labelled “VIDEO & AUDIO” were involved in more incidents of force than the control group without these stickers. As detailed in Table 4, on average, using a visual warning is associated with 146.82% higher odds of use of force by officers compared to cases without a visual warning (B = 0.9035; SE = 0.3483; p < 0.01). Table 3   Univariate Poisson regression main effect estimates for a visual warning of BWCs on use of force (N = 28,393): coefficients, standard error, incident rate ratio (IRR), and 95% confidence intervals (CI) + p ≤ 0.121; *p ≤ 0.052; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001 B Std. error IRR 95% CI (for IRR) Lower Upper Stickers 0.4384+ 0.2827 1.5503 0.8907 2.6982 (intercept)  − 6.5475*** 0.2132 0.0014 0.0009 0.0021 1228 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 Subgroup analyses Overall, in proactive policing engagements, we found a 204.75% higher overall rate of use of force by a police officer, an outcome consistent in both experimental groups (B = 1.1143; SE = 0.3658; p < 0.002). However, when examining the use of force within proactive policing interactions, the sticker led to more frequent use of force (3 cases of used force per 1000 cases). In contrast, in reactive policing, the use of force was less likely (1 case of used force per 1000 cases). In the treatment group, proactive policing was associated with 200% more incidents of force use than reactive policing. In the control group, a similar trend was observed, albeit weaker compared to the treatment group: In proactive policing, there was a relative increase in the use of force (2 cases of used force per 1000 cases) compared to reactive policing (less than 1 case of used force per 1000 cases). Thus, proactive policing was associated with a 150% higher use of force than reactive policing when the officer did not wear a sticker. Overall, as shown in Fig. 2, officers with the sticker were more likely to use force than officers without the Table 4   Clustered Poisson regression effect estimates for a visual warning of BWCs on use of force (N = 28,393; 36 clusters in total)): coefficients, standard error, incident rate ratio (IRR), and 95% confi- dence intervals (CI) + p ≤ 0.10; *p ≤ 0.052; **p ≤ 0.01; ***p ≤ 0.001; intercluster correlation coefficient =  < .001 B Std. error IRR 95% CI (for IRR) Lower Upper Stickers 0.9035** 0.3483 2.4682 1.2469 4.8857 Proactive policing 1.1143** 0.3658 3.0475 1.4877 6.2424 Arrest 0.9309* 0.4787 2.5368 0.9926 6.4833 Rank of use of force 1.6585*** 0.1482 5.2515 3.9269 7.0228 (intercept)  − 8.1010*** 0.3565 0.0003 0.0001 0.0006 Fig. 2   Rates of use of force per 1000 police-public encounters: comparing proactive policing to reactive policing (N = 28,393) 1229 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… sticker, both when comparing proactive policing between the groups and when com- paring reactive policing between the groups. Discussion Several studies have examined the effects of awareness and verbal notification of BWCs across various measures (Ariel et al., 2020; Clare et al., 2019; Demir, 2023; Demir et al., 2020). Some concluded that law enforcement should verbally inform citizens during encounters about the use of BWCs to enhance the cam- eras’ effectiveness (Demir, 2023). However, no research into the use of visual warnings that alert individuals about the presence of BWCs has been conducted until now. Amidst the tension of a police-citizen encounter, it is plausible that officers might overlook informing the suspect about the camera, therefore, visual cues to increase awareness could be necessary for the BWC effect to materialise. A clearly visible sticker on the camera that indicates to the citizen that a BWC is present can supplement verbal notification, promoting civilian awareness of the camera’s presence. The current research aimed to address this gap and assess the effectiveness of a visual warning of BWCs (via stickers) in reducing the use of force by officers compared to BWCs without a visual warning. We were able to isolate the vis- ual cue effect from the audial message, as officers in Miami Beach were, perhaps uniquely, not required to inform members of the public that a BWC was present. We found a significant difference in the use of force, but in the contrary direc- tion to our hypothesis: Officers in the experimental group, equipped with BWCs with yellow stickers for visual warning, were significantly more likely to report the use of force than officers without a visual warning. The causal mechanism behind this finding is puzzling. While a visual warning should theoretically increase awareness, foster compliance, and reduce aggression by all involved through deterrence and self-awareness, our results indicate the opposite. This prompts the question: Why did the visual warning of BWCs exacerbate the use of force? One possible explanation involves the integration of two theories: reactance theory (Brehm, 1966) and procedural justice theory (Tyler, 2006). First, when people perceive a threat to their freedom or autonomy, they may respond by engaging in certain behaviours to regain their perceived independence. This reactive response can manifest in a hostile and aggressive manner (Steindl et al., 2015). The awareness of being observed, which may be facilitated by BWCs, may be perceived as a threat to their autonomy, potentially reducing self-control and amplifying reactive behaviour (Esmark et al., 2017). Second, procedural justice theory highlights the significance of police interactions in shaping the public’s perceptions of the police and their legitimacy. This framework focuses on the process by which police officers enforce laws and interact with citizens rather than solely on the outcomes of these interactions. The absence of procedural jus- tice can significantly deteriorate the relationship between police and suspects, poten- tially leading to extreme responses, such as citizens attacking officers (Tyler, 2006). 1230 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 When individuals perceive their treatment by police as unfair or unjust, it often gen- erates frustration and anger (Sunshine & Tyler, 2003). This perception of unfairness undermines police legitimacy, leading to non-compliance or even active resistance against law enforcement authorities (Langley et al., 2021; Tankebe, 2013). Human emo- tional responses play a critical role in this dynamic; feelings of disrespect, humiliation, or threat can trigger aggressive reactions, particularly in high-stress encounters with police (Jonathan-Zamir & Weisburd, 2013). Moreover, in communities where distrust of the police is prevalent, there may be a collective mindset that encourages hostility towards officers, sometimes escalating to physical aggression (Weitzer & Tuch, 2005). In this experiment, the stickers may have heightened the perceived sense of moni- toring and posed a threat to citizens’ autonomy. Crucially, since the officers did not announce or explain to members of the public why the BWCs were in use during the contact, the devices may have intensified the threat to their autonomy. Ariel et al. (2016a) suggested that the transparency offered by BWCs could enhance perceptions of fairness and legitimacy in police-public encounters, implicitly indicating that failing to inform individuals about being recorded could undermine these perceptions. Individuals in police-public encounters may find the lack of a simple verbal statement, such as “you are being filmed”, disconcerting. They may feel that the effort required to notice the stick- ers and understand their significance places an additional burden on them, potentially leading to annoyance and resistance towards the officer. Therefore, instead of having a civilising effect, awareness of the yellow stickers triggered an adverse reaction mani- fested in reactive behaviour, including resistance or aggression. According to the causal mechanism we depicted earlier, the yellow stickers seem to have triggered an escalation of antagonistic behaviour from the public, leading officers to use force in response. As a result, officers used more force in efforts to control the belligerent situation. This explanation is consistent with studies that have shown that the actions and resistance of suspects during police-public encounters escalate police use of force (e.g., Alpert et  al., 2004). Therefore, the self-awareness of being observed was expected to lead to a calmer demeanour in suspects. However, the intentional fail- ure of police to inform people that BWCs are recording them represents a breach of procedural fairness — a lack of transparency, fairness, and respect in interactions between law enforcement and the public (Ariel et  al., 2015) — which resulted in more aggressive encounters and more use of force. Admittedly, these postulations are speculative without direct evidence, and the mechanisms involved remain within a “black box”. Future studies should examine these complexities more carefully. Further research is required to delve into whether audible warnings of BWCs are more effective than visual warnings, as suggested by studies across various fields (Bella & Silvestri, 2017). Under the bonnet of the effect of yellow stickers in proactive or reactive encounters Beyond the impact of a visual warning on the use of force by police officers, we also examined the influence of the encounter initiator (proactive or reactive policing) on the use of force, separately for the experimental group (with yellow stickers) and 1231 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… control group (without the stickers). Our findings indicate that in proactive polic- ing, officers are more likely to use force, whereas in reactive policing, the use of force is less likely. This outcome was observed among both research groups. This finding can be explained by the nature of proactive policing, where law enforcement actively seeks out situations that may be problematic (Weisburd & Majimundar, 2018), often engaging with the public while searching for signs of “criminal intent” and “anticipated future criminal behaviour”. Consequently, the experience of being stopped and the “feeling of suspicion” is associated with a decreased willingness to cooperate with law enforcement (Tyler et al., 2015). Therefore, officers involved in proactive policing may find themselves in  situations where individuals are less willing to cooperate, leading to an increased tendency to use force as a defensive or precautionary measure. Our findings align with those of Terrill and his colleagues (2023), who found that officers were four times more likely to use escalated force in encounters dur- ing proactive policing compared to reactive policing. They argue that in proactive policing, officers feel a heightened necessity to take control of the situation due to a lack of information, as they take responsibility for intervention rather than respond- ing to public calls. Hence, given the frequent encouragement of officers to adopt proactive policing in combating crime (Lum et al., 2020), it is advisable to consider research findings and previous studies (such as Terrill et al., 2023) that highlight the increased use of force as a potential cost associated with proactive policing, within the framework of BWCs. Limitations and future research We examined the use of force based on officers’ self-reports, and we cannot corrob- orate what occurred during the engagements. There may have been undocumented incidents of use of force in either one of the experimental groups or levels of force applied that went beyond or below the recording provided by the officers involved. Moreover, we lack unmediated information about which party instigated the use of force, evidently an essential aspect of understanding the dynamics of such incidents (Engel et  al., 2000). In addition, although the officers were not instructed to verbally inform the public that the camera was recording them dur- ing the encounter, we lack information on whether they adhered to this rule. Therefore, it is not clear whether the stickers in the control group experienced nil audial warning conditions (i.e., spillover) and, by implication, affected civil- ians’ awareness of the BWCs. Generally, we are uncertain if the officers consist- ently followed the policy regarding the operation of the BWCs and may have, on some occasions, notified civilians of the BWCs. However, this potential treat- ment contamination creates more stringent experimental conditions for a statis- tically significant (backfiring) difference between treatment and control arms to be detected. Thus, the reduced intergroup variance caused by the spillover effect has likely diluted rather than exacerbated the magnitude of the effect size, with a reduced likelihood for a Type I error. Still, future research should analyse BWC 1232 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 footage to understand the effect of the BWCs being equipped with visual warning signage. This analysis could incorporate systematic social observations, prefer- ably by analysing the BWC footage to understand these mechanisms empirically rather than relying solely on logical deductions. Thirdly, MBPD possesses unique characteristics, and the officers and incidents involved in our study may not be fully representative of those in other jurisdic- tions. The distinct nature of Miami Beach, marked by a vibrant night-time econ- omy and substantial population fluctuations during the holidays, sets it apart from typical police jurisdictions. Fourthly, the directive given to all officers not to verbally inform the public that they were wearing BWCs is specific to this context. While this directive offered an optimal setting to assess the effect of a visual stimulus independently of a verbal warning, it distinguishes Miami Beach from other locations (Petersen et al., 2021). Finally, it is essential to acknowledge that the yellow sticker could alter officers’ psychological landscape, potentially affecting their behaviour during interactions with the public. This effect might manifest in various ways, such as increased adher- ence to protocols, more cautious behaviour, or a heightened sense of security in exercising authority due to the perceived protection offered by video evidence (Ariel et al., 2018a). Future research should investigate these potential behavioural changes among officers, considering both the immediate and long-term impacts of such vis- ible recording indicators. Furthermore, examining yellow stickers’ dual impact on civilian and officer behaviour could provide valuable insights into the complex inter- play between transparency, accountability, and public trust. This can help develop more effective policies that maximize the benefits of BWCs while addressing unin- tended consequences. Conclusions It is evident that a visual indicator of recording is a necessary element to signal sur- veillance and potential accountability; however, this alone is not sufficient to induce the hypothesised civilising effect of BWCs in police-public engagements. As a stan- dalone stimulus, a visual warning can have unintended consequences, potentially escalating the use of force by officers, possibly due to the lack of procedural fair- ness in the encounter. Instead, it points to the complexity of human behaviour under surveillance, suggesting that for BWCs to have the civilising effect envisioned, ver- bal notifications may be more effective than visual cues alone. Further research is needed, preferably with a larger sample size and more diverse populations. Funding  Open access funding provided by Hebrew University of Jerusalem. This project was sup- ported by the Bureau of Justice Assistance’s Strategies for Policing Innovation program under Grant #2015-WY-BX-002. 1233 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… Declarations  Competing interests  The authors declare no competing interests. Open Access  This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permis- sion directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/ licenses/by/4.0/. References Adams, K., Alpert, G. P., Dunham, R. G., Garner, J. H., Greenfeld, L. A., Henriquez, M. A., Langan, P. A., Maxwell, C. D., & Smith, S. K., (1999). Use of force by police: overview of national and local data (NCJ 176330). U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. https://​www.​ojp.​gov/​ pdffi​les1/​nij/​176330.​pdf Alpert, G. P., & Smith, W. C. (1994). How reasonable is the reasonable man: Police and excessive force. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 85, 481. Alpert, G. P., Dunham, R. G., & MacDonald, J. M. (2004). Interactive police-citizen encounters that result in force. Police Quarterly, 7(4), 475–488. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10986​11103​260507 Ariel, B. (2016a). Increasing cooperation with the police using body-worn cameras. Police Quarterly, 19(3), 326–362. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10986​11116​653723 Ariel, B. (2016b). Police body cameras in large police departments. The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 106(4), 729–768. Ariel, B., Farrar, W. A., & Sutherland, A. (2015). The effect of police body-worn cameras on use of force and citizens’ complaints against the police: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 31(3), 509–535. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10940-​014-​9236-3 Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Hender- son, R. (2016a). Report: Increases in police use of force in the presence of body-worn cam- eras are driven by officer discretion: A protocol-based subgroup analysis of ten randomised experiments. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 12(3), 453–463. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​ s11292-​016-​9261-3 Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R. (2016b). Wearing body cameras increases assaults against officers and does not reduce police use of force: Results from a global multi-site experiment. European Journal of Criminology, 13(6), 744–755. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​14773​70816​643734 Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R. (2017). “Contagious accountability”: A global multisite randomised controlled trial on the effect of police body-worn cameras on citizens’ complaints against the police. Criminal Justice and Behaviour, 44(2), 293–316. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00938​54816​668218 Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., & Sosinski, G. (2018a). The deterrence spec- trum: Explaining why police body-worn cameras ‘work’ or ‘backfire’ in aggressive police–pub- lic encounters. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice, 12(1), 6–26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1093/​ police/​paw051 Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., Henstock, D., Young, J., Drover, P., Sykes, J., Megicks, S., & Henderson, R. (2018b). Paradoxical effects of self-awareness of being observed: Testing the effect of police body- worn cameras on assaults and aggression against officers. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 14(1), 19–47. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11292-​017-​9311-5 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330.pdf https://www.ojp.gov/pdffiles1/nij/176330.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611103260507 https://doi.org/10.1177/1098611116653723 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-014-9236-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9261-3 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-016-9261-3 https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816643734 https://doi.org/10.1177/0093854816668218 https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paw051 https://doi.org/10.1093/police/paw051 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-017-9311-5 1234 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 Ariel, B., Newton, M., McEwan, L., Ashbridge, G. A., Weinborn, C., & Brants, H. S. (2019). Reduc- ing assaults against staff using body-worn cameras (BWCs) in railway stations. Criminal Justice Review, 44(1), 76–93. Ariel, B., Mitchell, R. J., Tankebe, J., Firpo, M. E., Fraiman, R., & Hyatt, J. M. (2020). Using wearable technology to increase police legitimacy in Uruguay: The case of body-worn cameras. Law & Social Inquiry, 45(1), 52–80. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1017/​lsi.​2019.​13 Ariel, B., Bland, M., & Sutherland, A. (2022). Experimental designs. SAGE Publications. Ariel, B., Harinam, V., Zeynel, S., Brogden, J., & Webster, K. (2023). Reducing the risk of workplace vio- lence against public-facing employees: Findings from a mix-methods study of body-worn cameras. Springer Nature. Ariel, B., Gregory, A., Cronin, L., Ebbs, B., Wiffin, M., & Michel, N. (2024). Routinising police-security collaborations: A prospective, mixed-methods experimentin British train stations. Police Quarterly, 0(0), 1–37. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10986​11124​12272​19 Beccaria, C. (2008). On crimes and punishments and other writings. University of Toronto Press. (Origi- nal work published 1764). Bella, F., & Silvestri, M. (2017). Effects of directional auditory and visual warnings at intersections on reaction times and speed reduction times. Transportation Research Part f: Traffic Psychology and Behaviour, 51, 88–102. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​trf.​2017.​09.​006 Bennett, R. R., Bartholomew, B., Baxter, S. K., Champagne, H., & Schuler, E. R. (2023). The effects of body-worn cameras on self-initiated police encounters. Police Quarterly, 26(3), 333–354. https://​ doi.​org/​10.​1177/​10986​11122​11237​98 Boehme, H. M., & Schnell, C. (2022). Why did the use of force go up? Investigating the unexpected impact of a body-worn camera program on use of force time series. Journal of Criminal Justice, 82, 101944. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jcrim​jus.​2022.​101944 Braga, A. A., Sousa, W. H., Coldren, J. R. J., & Rodriguez, D. (2018). The effects of body-worn cameras on police activity and police-citizen encounters: A randomised controlled trial. Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology, 108(3), 511–538. Braga, A. A., MacDonald, J. M., & Barao, L. M. (2021). Do body-worn cameras improve community perceptions of the police? Results from a controlled experimental evaluation. Journal of Experimen- tal Criminology, 19, 1–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11292-​021-​09476-9 Braga, A. A., MacDonald, J. M., & McCabe, J. (2022). Body-worn cameras, lawful police stops, and NYPD officer compliance: A cluster randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 60(1), 124–158. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1745-​9125.​12293 Brehm, J. W. (1966). A theory of psychological reactance. Academic Press. Chartrand, T. L., & Bargh, J. A. (1999). The chameleon effect: The perception–behaviour link and social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76(6), 893–910. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1037/​ 0022-​3514.​76.6.​893 Choi, S., Michalski, N. D., & Snyder, J. A. (2023). The “civilizing” effect of body-worn cameras on police-civilian interactions: Examining the current evidence, potential moderators, and methodolog- ical limitations. Criminal Justice Review, 48(1), 21–47. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07340​16822​10935​ 49 Clare, J., Henstock, D., McComb, C., Newland, R., Barnes, G. C., Lee, M., & Taylor, E. (2019). Police, public, and arrestee perceptions of body-worn video: A single jurisdictional multiple-perspective analysis. Criminal Justice Review, 44(3), 304–321. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​07340​16819​846236 Demir, M. (2023). Effect of awareness and notification of body-worn cameras on procedural justice, police legitimacy, cooperation, and compliance: Findings from a randomised controlled trial. Jour- nal of Experimental Criminology, 19(2), 311–341. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11292-​021-​09487-6 Demir, M., Braga, A. A., & Apel, R. (2020). Effects of police body-worn cameras on citizen compliance and cooperation: Findings from a quasi-randomised controlled trial. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 855–882. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1745-​9133.​12505 Dzieweczynski, T. L., Eklund, A. C., & Rowland, W. J. (2006). Male 11-ketotestosterone levels change as a result of being watched in Siamese fighting fish, Betta splendens. General and Comparative Endo- crinology, 147(2), 184–189. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ygcen.​2005.​12.​023 Engel, R. S., Sobol, J. J., & Worden, R. E. (2000). Further exploration of the demeanor hypothesis: The interaction effects of suspects’ characteristics and demeanor on police behavior. Justice Quarterly, 17(2), 235–258. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07418​82000​00963​11 https://doi.org/10.1017/lsi.2019.13 https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111241227219 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trf.2017.09.006 https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111221123798 https://doi.org/10.1177/10986111221123798 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2022.101944 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09476-9 https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9125.12293 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893 https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.76.6.893 https://doi.org/10.1177/07340168221093549 https://doi.org/10.1177/07340168221093549 https://doi.org/10.1177/0734016819846236 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09487-6 https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12505 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ygcen.2005.12.023 https://doi.org/10.1080/07418820000096311 1235 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… Esmark, C. L., Noble, S. M., & Breazeale, M. J. (2017). I’ll be watching you: Shoppers’ reactions to per- ceptions of being watched by employees. Journal of Retailing, 93(3), 336–349. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1016/j.​jretai.​2017.​04.​005 Groff, E. R., Haberman, C., & Wood, J. D. (2020). The effects of body-worn cameras on police-citizen encounters and police activity: Evaluation of a pilot implementation in Philadelphia, PA. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 16(4), 463–480. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11292-​019-​09383-0 Hamm, J. A., D’Annunzio, A. M., Bornstein, B. H., Hoetger, L., & Herian, M. N. (2019). Do body-worn cameras reduce eyewitness cooperation with the police? An experimental inquiry. Journal of Exper- imental Criminology, 15(4), 685–701. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11292-​019-​09356-3 Harrell, E., & Davis, E. (2020). Contacts between police and the public, 2018 - Statistical tables (NCJ 255730). US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs. Retrieved from https://​bjs.​ojp.​gov/​ conte​nt/​pub/​pdf/​cbpp1​8st.​pdf Henstock, D., & Ariel, B. (2017). Testing the effects of police body-worn cameras on use of force during arrests: A randomised controlled trial in a large British police force. European Journal of Criminol- ogy, 14(6), 720–750. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​14773​70816​686120 Jennings, W. G., Lynch, M. D., & Fridell, L. A. (2015). Evaluating the impact of police officer body- worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resistance and serious external complaints: Evidence from the Orlando Police Department (OPD) experience utilizing a randomised controlled experiment. Journal of Criminal Justice, 43(6), 480–486. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jcrim​jus.​2015.​10.​003 Jennings, W. G., Fridell, L. A., Lynch, M., Jetelina, K. K., & Reingle Gonzalez, J. M. (2017). A quasi- experimental evaluation of the effects of police body-worn cameras (BWCs) on response-to-resist- ance in a large metropolitan police department. Deviant Behaviour, 38(11), 1332–1339. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1080/​01639​625.​2016.​12487​11 Jonathan-Zamir, T., & Weisburd, D. (2013). The effects of security threats on antecedents of police legiti- macy: Findings from a quasi-experiment in Israel. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 50(1), 3–32. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1177/​00224​27811​418002 Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behaviour. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behaviour (pp. 79–94). General Learning Press. Langley, B., Ariel, B., Tankebe, J., Sutherland, A., Beale, M., Factor, R., & Weinborn, C. (2021). A sim- ple checklist, that is all it takes: a cluster randomizedcontrolled field trial on improving the treatment of suspected terrorists by the police. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 17, 629–655. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1007/​s11292-​020-​09428-9 Longridge, R., Chapman, B., Bennell, C., Clarke, D. D., & Keatley, D. (2023). Behaviour sequence analysis of police body-worn camera footage. Journal of Police and Criminal Psychology, 38(2), 255–262. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11896-​020-​09393-z Lum, C., Stoltz, M., Koper, C. S., & Scherer, J. A. (2019). Research on body-worn cameras. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 93–118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1745-​9133.​12412 Lum, C., Koper, C. S., Wilson, D. B., Stoltz, M., Goodier, M., Eggins, E., Higginson, A., & Mazerolle, L. (2020). Body-worn cameras’ effects on police officers and citizen behaviour: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16(3), e1112. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/​cl2.​1112 Miller, J., & Chillar, V. F. (2022). Do police body-worn cameras reduce citizen fatalities? Results of a country-wide natural experiment. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 38(3), 723–754. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1007/​s10940-​021-​09513-w Morgan, M. A., Logan, M. W., & Olma, T. M. (2020). Police use of force and suspect behaviour: An inmate perspective. Journal of Criminal Justice, 67(2), 101673. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jcrim​jus.​2020.​101673 Nagin, D. S. (2013). Deterrence in the twenty-first century. Crime and Justice, 42, 199–263. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1086/​670398 Newell, B. C. & Koen, M. C. (2023). Painting the narrative: police body-worn cameras, report writing, and the techno-regulation of police work. First Monday, 28(7). https://​doi.​org/​10.​5210/​fm.​v28i7.​13243 Patterson, Q., & White, M. D. (2021). Is there a civilizing effect on citizens? Testing the pre-conditions for body-worn camera-induced behavior change. Police Quarterly, 24(4), 411–437. Petersen, K., & Lu, Y. F. (2023). The downstream effects of body-worn cameras: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Justice Quarterly, 40(6), 765–790. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1080/​07418​825.​2023.​21818​55 Petersen, K., Mouro, A., Papy, D., Castillo, N., & Ariel, B. (2021). Seeing is believing: The impact of body-worn cameras on court outcomes, a cluster-randomised controlled trial in Miami Beach. Jour- nal of Experimental Criminology, 19(1), 191–211. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11292-​021-​09479-6 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2017.04.005 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jretai.2017.04.005 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09383-0 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-019-09356-3 https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf https://bjs.ojp.gov/content/pub/pdf/cbpp18st.pdf https://doi.org/10.1177/1477370816686120 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2015.10.003 https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1248711 https://doi.org/10.1080/01639625.2016.1248711 https://doi.org/10.1177/0022427811418002 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09428-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-020-09428-9 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11896-020-09393-z https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12412 https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1112 https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-021-09513-w https://doi.org/10.1007/s10940-021-09513-w https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2020.101673 https://doi.org/10.1086/670398 https://doi.org/10.1086/670398 https://doi.org/10.5210/fm.v28i7.13243 https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2023.2181855 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11292-021-09479-6 1236 N. Assaraf et al. 1 3 Petersen, K., Papy, D., Mouro, A., & Ariel, B. (2023). The usage and utility of body-worn camera foot- age in courts: A survey analysis of state prosecutors. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 20(3), 534–569. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jels.​12358 Peterson, B., Yu, L., Vigne, N., & Lawrence, D. (2018). The Milwaukee police department’s body-worn camera program: Evaluation findings and key takeaways. Urban Institute. Pezdek, K. (2022). Psychological research on the use of body-worn cameras. In: B. H. Bornstein, M. K. Miller & D. DeMatteo (Eds.), Advances in psychology and law (pp. 39–62). Springer, Cham. https://​ doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​031-​13733-4_2 Piza, E. L., Welsh, B. C., Farrington, D. P., & Thomas, A. L. (2019). CCTV surveillance for crime pre- vention. Criminology & Public Policy, 18(1), 135–159. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1745-​9133.​12419 Powell, Z. A. (2023). Body-worn cameras and settlements. Justice Evaluation Journal, 1–15. https://​doi.​ org/​10.​1080/​24751​979.​2023.​22676​51 Pratt, T. C., Cullen, F. T., Blevins, K. R., Daigle, L. E., & Madensen, T. D. (2006). The empirical status of deterrence theory: A meta-analysis. In F. T. Cullen, J. P. Wright, & K. R. Blevins (Eds.), Taking stock: The status of criminological theory (pp. 367–395). Transaction Publishers. Ratcliffe, J. H., & Rosenthal, J. M. (2021). Video surveillance of public places, 2nd edition. (Problem- oriented guides for police series No. 4). U.S. Department of Justice Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, Center for Problem-Oriented Policing. Saulnier, A., Lahay, R., McCarty, W. P., & Sanders, C. (2020). The RIDE study: Effects of body-worn cameras on public perceptions of police interactions. Criminology & Public Policy, 19(3), 833–854. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​1745-​9133.​12511 Seguin, T. J. (2019). Perceptions of police body-worn video and police decision making (Publication no. 27545141) [Doctoral dissertation, Capella University]. ProQuest. https://​www.​proqu​est.​com/​docvi​ew/​ 23218​32488?%​20The​ses&​fromo​penvi​ew=​true&​pq-​origs​ite=​gscho​lar&​sourc​etype=​Disse​rtati​ons%​20 Steindl, C., Jonas, E., Sittenthaler, S., Traut-Mattausch, E., & Greenberg, J. (2015). Understanding psy- chological reactance. Zeitschrift Fur Psychologie, 223(4), 205–214. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1027/​2151-​ 2604/​a0002​22 Sunshine, J., & Tyler, T. R. (2003). The role of procedural justice and legitimacy in shaping public sup- port for policing. Law & Society Review, 37(3), 513–548. Sutherland, A., Ariel, B., Farrar, W., & De Anda, R. (2017). Post-experimental follow-ups—Fade-out versus persistence effects: The Rialto police body-worn camera experiment four years on. Journal of Criminal Justice, 53, 110–116. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jcrim​jus.​2017.​09.​008 Tankebe, J. (2013). Viewing things differently: The dimensions of public perceptions of police legiti- macy. Criminology, 51(1), 103–135. Terrill, W., Zimmerman, L., & Somers, L. J. (2023). Applying video-based systematic social observation to police use of force encounters: An assessment of de-escalation and escalation within the con- text of proportionality and incrementalism. Justice Quarterly, 40(7), 1045–1076. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1080/​07418​825.​2023.​22228​19 Timan, T. (2016). The body-worn camera as a transitional technology. Surveillance & Society, 14(1), 145–149. https://​doi.​org/​10.​24908/​ss.​v14i1.​6281 Torabi, M., Mosavi, A., Ozturk, P., Varkonyi-Koczy, A., & Istvan, V. (2019). A hybrid machine learning approach for daily prediction of solar radiation. In G. Laukaitis (Ed.), Recent advances in technol- ogy research and education  (pp. 266–274). Springer International Publishing. https://​doi.​org/​10.​ 1007/​978-3-​319-​99834-3_​35 Tyler, T. R. (2006). Why do people obey the law? Princeton University Press. Tyler, T. R., Jackson, J., & Mentovich, A. (2015). The consequences of being an object of suspicion: Potential pitfalls of proactive police contact. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 12(4), 602–636. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/​jels.​12086 Von Hirsch, A., Bottoms, A. E., Burney, E., & Wikstrom, P. O. (1999). Criminal deterrence and sentence severity: An analysis of recent research. Hart. Weisburd, D., & Majimundar, M. K. (Eds.). (2018). Proactive policing: effects on crime and commu- nities. Committee on proactive policing: Effects on crime, communities, and civil liberties.  The National Academies Press. https://​doi.​org/​10.​17226/​24928 Weitzer, R., & Tuch, S. A. (2005). Racially biased policing: Determinants of citizen perceptions. Social Forces, 83(3), 1009–1030. White, M. D., Todak, N., & Gaub, J. E. (2017). Assessing citizen perceptions of body-worn cameras after encounters with police. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies & Management, 40(4), 689–703. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1108/​PIJPSM-​07-​2016-​0105 https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12358 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13733-4_2 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-13733-4_2 https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12419 https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2023.2267651 https://doi.org/10.1080/24751979.2023.2267651 https://doi.org/10.1111/1745-9133.12511 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2321832488?%20Theses&fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2321832488?%20Theses&fromopenview=true&pq-origsite=gscholar&sourcetype=Dissertations%20 https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000222 https://doi.org/10.1027/2151-2604/a000222 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcrimjus.2017.09.008 https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2023.2222819 https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2023.2222819 https://doi.org/10.24908/ss.v14i1.6281 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99834-3_35 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-99834-3_35 https://doi.org/10.1111/jels.12086 https://doi.org/10.17226/24928 https://doi.org/10.1108/PIJPSM-07-2016-0105 1237 1 3 Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual… Williams Jr, M. C., Weil, N., Rasich, E. A., Ludwig, J., Chang, H., & Egrari, S. (2021). Body-worn cam- eras in policing: Benefits and costs  (p. 28622). National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3386/​w28622 Yokum, D., Ravishankar, A., & Coppock, A. (2017). Evaluating the effects of police body-worn cameras: A randomised controlled trial. The Lab @ DC, Office of the City Administrator, Executive Office of the Mayor. https://​bwc.​thelab.​dc.​gov/​TheLa​bDC_​MPD_​BWC_​Worki​ng_​Paper_​10.​20.​17.​pdf Publisher’s Note  Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. https://doi.org/10.3386/w28622 https://bwc.thelab.dc.gov/TheLabDC_MPD_BWC_Working_Paper_10.20.17.pdf Behind the yellow sticker: paradoxical effects of a visual warning of body-worn cameras on the use of police force Abstract Objectives Methods Results Conclusion Introduction Literature review Use of force BWCs (One possible) mechanism behind BWCs Awareness of BWCs The present study Methods Setting Unit of analysis Randomisation Intervention Measures Use of force Use of force level Arrest Statistical analysis Subgroup analyses Results Unadjusted outcomes Main effects Univariate Poisson regression model Clustered Poisson regression model Subgroup analyses Discussion Under the bonnet of the effect of yellow stickers in proactive or reactive encounters Limitations and future research Conclusions References