Does Video Recording Inhibit Crime Suspects? Evidence From a Fully Randomized Field Experiment Saul M. Kassin John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York Melissa B. Russano Roger Williams University Aria D. Amrom and Johanna Hellgren John Jay College of Criminal Justice of the City University of New York Jeff Kukucka Towson University Victoria Z. Lawson Institute for State and Local Governance of the City University of New York In partnership with a small city police department, we randomly informed or did not inform 122 crime suspects that their interrogations were being video-recorded. Coding of all sessions indicated that camera-informed suspects spoke as often and as much as did those who were not informed; they were as likely to waive Miranda at the outset and later; they were as likely to make admissions and confessions, not just denials; and they were perceived no differently by detectives on a range of dimensions. Looking at distal outcomes, we observed no differences in ultimate case dispositions. In terms of policy and practice, results did not support the hypothesis that recording— even when trans- parent, as required in 2-party consent states—inhibits suspects or alters case dispositions. At least for now, this conclusion is empirically limited to situations in which cameras are concealed and to interrogations that do not involve juveniles, homicides, or drug crimes, which we a priori excluded from our sample. Public Significance Statement In recent years, many police departments have begun to record interrogations. Some departments inform suspects as such; others do not, believing it will adversely affect processes and outcomes. We tested this hypothesis in a study of real suspects who were randomly informed or not informed that their interrogations would be recorded. No significant differences were found in terms of how often or how much they spoke, their tendency to waive Miranda rights or make admissions of guilt, the extent to which detectives perceived them to be talkative and cooperative, or final case dispositions. Keywords: police interviews, interrogations, confessions Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000319.supp Saul M. Kassin, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Crim- inal Justice of the City University of New York; Melissa B. Russano, School of Justice Studies, Roger Williams University; Aria D. Amrom and Johanna Hellgren, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Crim- inal Justice of the City University of New York; Jeff Kukucka, Department of Psychology, Towson University; Victoria Z. Lawson, Institute for State and Local Governance of the City University of New York. This research was funded by National Science Foundation (NSF) Grant SES-1021442 (“On the Videotaping of Interrogations: Testing Proposed Effects on Police, Suspects, and Jurors”). We thank Jon Gould, former director of the Law and Social Sciences Division of NSF for extensions needed to complete this research and Rebecca Brown and Tom Sullivan for the consultation concerning interstate recording practices. We are particularly indebted to Bob McKenna, former Assistant Dean at Roger Williams University; Attor- ney General of Rhode Island Peter Kilmartin; Deputy Attorney General of Rhode Island Gerry Coyne; Pawtucket Chief of Police Tina Gon- calves; former Pawtucket Chief of Police Paul King; Detective Sergeant Paul Brandley; Detective Sergeant Timothy Graham; and all of the detectives in the Major Crimes Unit of the Pawtucket Police Depart- ment. We are also deeply indebted to Daisy Ort, Jessica Colwick, and Brett Lowder for the time they spent coding interrogation transcripts and recordings. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Saul M. Kassin, Department of Psychology, John Jay College of Criminal Justice, 524 West 59th Street, New York, NY 10019. E-mail: skassin@jjay.cuny.edu This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly. Law and Human Behavior © 2019 American Psychological Association 2019, Vol. 43, No. 1, 45–55 0147-7307/19/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000319 45