1 of 8

TEAM 4

2 of 8

Team 4

Kalpan Agrawal�Interaction Dev.

Yael Granot�Research/Story

Daniel Pimentel�MOCAP/Sound/Concept

Lisa Szolovits�Lead Developer

Sandeep Varry�Producer/Project Manager

Ronald Baez�Narrative/Script

3 of 8

Problem Space

People are NAIVE REALISTS - they believe they see the world as it IS.

In the Legal System, people are confident that they objectively and completely interpret VIDEO EVIDENCE (e.g. body cameras, civilian cell footage). The are unaware they suffer

from CAMERA PERSPECTIVE BIAS.

Can we make people experience the limitations of their perception?

Can we facilitate conversations about disparity and justice?

Body Camera

Dashboard Camera

*even when they know they are seeing doctored images or only half a scene, they still feel compelled by what they see.

Where that becomes especially problematic is in the legal system, where video evidence is becoming increasingly prevalent. Jurors see this evidence and believe that their interpretation of what they see is complete and objective, even when others are clearly interpreting the same information differently.

Why this matters is that new forms of evidence like Body Camera footage are being presented as the ANSWER/SOLUTION to bias. Yet research tells us that such footage, because it only points at the civilian and fails to give us as much visual information about the officer, deflates people’s perception of the culpability of police officers.

So we wanted to set up this game to see….

4 of 8

Multi Platform 3D/2D

Immersed Player

Non Immersed Jury

Post-game Deliberation

Group’s Verdict

5 of 8

Gameplay Video

Click Video here

6 of 8

Research Applications

Areas: Law and criminal justice, psychology, computer-human interaction, education
Questions:

How do people see the same evidence in different ways?
Can confronting alternative perspectives reduce people’s certainty in their own perceptions? Shift their legal decisions?
Does deliberation resolve biased interpretation of visual evidence?

A number of exciting research applications across fields, including….

This project allows us to get measurable data on questions like:

How do people see the same evidence in different ways? We can record how they actively describe what they are seeing and how those descriptions differ across users.

We can ask whether the experience we’ve created, of confronting alternative perspectives, can actually effectively reduce naive realism — we can measure people’s certainly in their OWN interpretations and whether they shift their legal decisions after being exposed to other perspectives.

We know that jury deliberation can help reduce bias in juror decision-making. The multiplayer tabletop component of this game would allow researchers to record the group deliberation process to see if people can effectively talk each other through alternative perspectives, essentially literally and figuratively GETTING PEOPLE TO SEE EYE TO EYE.

7 of 8

Implications for the Future

Add further scenarios for research and entertainment
Create custom game assets
Develop more intricate game mechanics and engagement
Develop more engaging off-headset gaming mechanics
Developing further post-game education materials
A commercial product enabling a single headset multiplayer “phygital” entertainment concept (rare in present day VR market)

8 of 8

References

Feigenson, N., & Spiesel, C. (2019). The psychology of surveillance and sousveillance video evidence. In C. J.

Najdowski & M. C. Stevenson (Eds.) Criminal Juries in the 21st Century: Contemporary Issues,

Psychological Science, and the Law (p. 173-193). Oxford University Press.

Granot, Y., Balcetis, E., Feigenson, N., & Tyler, T. (2018). In the eyes of the law: Perception versus reality in

appraisals of video evidence. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 24(1), 93-104.

Morris, E. (2014). Believing is Seeing: Observations on the Mysteries of Photography. New York: Penguin.

Turner, B. L., Caruso, E. M., Dilich, M. A., & Roese, N. J. (2019). Body camera footage leads to lower judgments

of intent than dash camera footage. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(4), 1201-1206.

Ware, L. J., Lassiter, G. D., Patterson, S. M., & Ransom, M. R. (2008). Camera perspective bias in videotaped

confessions: Evidence that visual attention is a mediator. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(2), 192-200.