Seeing the Offenders’ Perspective Through the Eye-Tracking Device

• Author: Nicole Lasky,Bonnie S. Fisher,Scott Jacques
• DOI: 10.1177/1043986215607258
• Published date: 01 November 2015
• Date: 01 November 2015
• Subject Matter: Articles

Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice

2015, Vol. 31(4) 449 –467

© 2015 SAGE Publications

Reprints and permissions:

sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav

DOI: 10.1177/1043986215607258

ccj.sagepub.com

Article

Seeing the Offenders’

Perspective Through the

Eye-Tracking Device:

Methodological Insights From

a Study of Shoplifters

Scott Jacques1, Nicole Lasky2, and Bonnie S. Fisher2

Abstract

This article examines the utility of a novel tool for conducting offender-based

research: the “eye-tracking device” (ETD), which is designed to identify what a

person sees in the center of his or her vision. First, we review prior research using

the ETD. Second, we detail the advantages and troubles we encountered when using

it to study simulated shoplifting in retail outlets among 39 active offenders. Benefits

of using the ETD include video recording what participants look at, which may serve

as quantitative or qualitative data, and, when coupled with a questionnaire, the video

footage may be used as a memory prompt and source of verification. Thus, using the

ETD should reduce two sources of measurement bias: participants’ limited recall and

intentional fabrication. However, limitations of the ETD are that it may inaccurately

record what participants see in their peripheral vision and its physical structure makes

some participants feel more inconspicuous than usual, both of which are pertinent

to criminals’ attempts to avoid apprehension. The peripheral vision problem limits

the quantitative output’s validity, whereas the physical structure concern potentially

diminishes the generalizability of results. We conclude by discussing the implications

of our findings for theory and research.

Keywords

eye-tracking device, wearable technology, offender-based research, offender decision

making, shoplifting

1Georgia State University, Atlanta, USA

2University of Cincinnati, OH, USA

Corresponding Author:

Scott Jacques, Department of Criminal Justice and Criminology, Georgia State University, P.O. Box 4018,

Atlanta, GA 30302-4018, USA.

Email: sjacques1@gsu.edu

607258CCJXXX10.1177/1043986215607258Journal of Contemporary Criminal JusticeJacques et al.

research-article2015

450 Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice 31(4)

Introduction

Offender-based research involves analyzing information collected directly from law-

breakers (Bernasco, 2010; Copes, Jacques, Hochstetler, & Dickinson, 2015). There are

several methods of obtaining such data. Among the most common is to survey offend-

ers. This method serves as the basis of many works, most famous being Hirschi’s (1969)

Causes of Delinquency. The advantage of surveys is they allow researchers to statisti-

cally analyze the causes, correlates, and consequences of offending. For instance,

Osgood, O’Malley, Bateman, and Johnston (1989) found that as people age, they are

significantly less likely to shoplift, which is the crime under focus in this article.

A limitation of surveying offenders is that the highly structured, closed-ended

nature of quantitative questionnaires inhibits the collection of detailed descriptions.

Yet such descriptions provide valuable insight into offenders’ motivations and tech-

niques of crime commission. To obtain this information, criminologists interview

criminals or collect their autobiographies. Prime examples are Shaw’s (1930) The

Jack-Roller and Sutherland’s (1937) The Professional Thief. In the latter, “Chic

Cromwell” describes some of the tips that shoplifters tell each other, including “Never

grift on the way out,” “Look out for the red-haired saleslady—she is double-smart,”

and “The lunch hour is the best time to work that spot” (Sutherland, 1937, p. 210).

Of course, retrospective data—quantitative or qualitative—have their own set of

limitations. Foremost among them is that such data have uncertain validity due to

participants’ memory decay and dishonesty. After all, it is human nature to forget and

to manipulate the truth (Gottschall, 2012). One way researchers combat this problem

is by independently observing crime in situ (see, for example, Jacques & Wright,

2015). Yet this procedure is, at best, risky and, at worst, unethical—depending on

whom you ask (cf. Goffman, 2014; Kotlowitz, 2014).

A way to observe offenders but avoid the aforementioned problems is to rely on

pictures and video footage (Collins, 2008; Levine, Taylor, & Best, 2011). For example,

Dabney, Hollinger, and Dugan (2004) observed 105 shoplifting incidents by using the

store’s closed-circuit television system (CCTV). This method allowed the researchers

to draw conclusions about the demographic makeup of the store’s shoplifters, as well

as their techniques of stealing. But the problem with this method is that the offenders’

perspective is left unrecorded.

To tap into the offenders’ perspective while mitigating risk, ethical quandaries, and

memory decay, researchers use hypothetical scenarios to simulate lawbreaking (Nee

et al., 2015; van Gelder, Otte, & Luciano, 2014). This can be done with quantitative

and qualitative methods. An example of the former is a study that entailed showing

photographs of houses to burglars and non-offenders to determine whether they dif-

fered in recognition of “burglary relevant” environment changes (Wright, Logie, &

Decker, 1995). Qualitative simulation-data have been collected, for instance, by hav-

ing shoplifters browse through a store while narrating their shoplifting-related thoughts

into an audio recorder (Carmel-Gilfin, 2011; Weaver & Carroll, 1985).

A criticism of simulation research is that the resultant data may have limited exter-

nal validity, which is a problem we will examine in the “Discussion” section. For now,