Cited by 38Advanced Causal Inference TechniquesEvaluation and Performance AssessmentPolicing Practices and Perceptions

Preventing treatment spillover contamination in criminological field experiments: the case of body-worn police cameras

Open access
Ariel, Barak, Sutherland, Alex, Sherman, Lawrence W.·2019·Journal of Experimental Criminology

Abstract

A central issue in experiments is protecting the integrity of causal identification from treatment spillover effects. The objective of this article is to demonstrate a bright line beyond which spillover of treatment renders experimental results misleading. We focus on a highly publicized recent test of police body cameras that violated the key assumption of a valid experiment: independence of treatment conditions for each unit of analysis. In this article, we set out arguments for and against particular units of random assignment in relation to protecting against spillover effects that violate the Stable Unit Treatment Value Assumption (SUTVA). Comparisons to methodological solutions from other disciplines demonstrate several ways of dealing with interference in experiments, all of which give priority to causal identification over sample size as the best pathway to statistical power. Researchers contemplating which units of analysis to randomize can use the case of police body-worn cameras to argue against research designs that guarantee large spillover effects.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11292-018-9344-4

Cites

83 of 83 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

17 of the 100 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Authors
Ariel, B., Sutherland, A., & Sherman, L. W.
Affiliations
  • Hebrew University of Jerusalem (IL)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Ariel, Barak
Venue
Journal of Experimental Criminology
Published
2018-11-27
Volume
15
Issue
4
Pages
569-591
ISSN
  • 1572-8315 (ISSN-L)
  • 1573-3750
OpenAlex
W2901981450
Cited by
38
References
100
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 1
FWCI
4.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Criminology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
University of Cambridge
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Advanced Causal Inference Techniques
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Evaluation and Performance Assessment
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Policing Practices and Perceptions
Keywords
stable unit treatment value assumption, police body cameras, causal identification, statistical power

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review