IntroductionI have illustrated the usefulness of quantitative research, by observing shoppers within a department store and identifying whether bodily movements are pre-emptive actions of shoplifting patterns. While working as a Loss prevention Officer for David Jones, I have observed that nervous signs significantly correlate with the action of shoplifting. Despite specific instructions not to use shopper appearances in the selection of probable shoplifting offenders however, staff members still rely on appearance and demographic factors. I believe this quantitative study of shopper behaviours through the use of CCTV will assist in reducing these shoplifting stereotypes, by demonstrating that behavioural categories are more conclusive than demographic factors in the profiling of likely offenders. I have deductively developed the theory that: individuals within department stores are more inclined to engage in the criminal act of shoplifting, based expressive behavioural movements.

Literature reviewStudies attempt to validate that expressive bodily movement’s serve as excitement or anxiety reducing functions to adrenal reactions within the body.1 It is relevant to note that expressive movements apply mainly to bodily movements of eyes, face, limbs and body posture.2

In the context of shoplifting then, it may be correct to infer that expressive bodily movements are more important than demographic factors in identifying shoplifters.3 For example, a person’s movements prior to shoplifting can develop quickly when the excitement or anxiety generated produces adrenaline. The onset of adrenaline significantly impairs concentration as one aspect of a reduced ability to ‘physically’ act ‘normally’.4 This may result in diminished control of bodily functions leading to an unconscious performance of gross behaviors. It is a reminder that what people actually do is often more important than what they actually say.5

Despite these conclusions, interviews with store security personnel reveal that employees admit to using demographic factors (clothes, race, age, and class) more heavily than behavioural factors (nervous behaviour, expressive movements and loitering) to profile potential shoplifters.6 These preconceived biases regarding the nature of individuals based on attitudes toward particular groups can often produce erroneous decisions through the pursuit of innocent shoppers.7

1 Woods, Douglas W., and Raymond G. Miltenberger. 1996. "Are persons with nervous habits nervous? A preliminary examination of habit function in a nonreferred population ". Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis. 29 (2): 260.2 Kellehear, Allan. 1993. “Simple Observation.” In The unobtrusive researcher: a guide to methods. St. Leonards, NSW, Australia: Allen & Unwin. 1163 Keen, Cathy. 2005. Study shows shoplifters more readily identified by behavior, not race.http://news.ufl.edu/2005/08/10/shoplifters/4 Segal M. 1976. "Letter: Psychiatric aspects of shoplifting". British Medical Journal. 1 (6008): 523-524, 5235 Kellehear, above n 2, 126.6 Murphy, Daniel J. I. 1986. Customers and thieves: An ethnography of shoplifting. Brookfield, VT: Gower.7 Dabney, Dean A., Laura Dugan, Volkan Topalli, and Richard C. Hollinger. 2006. "Impact of Implicit Stereotyping on Offender Profiling: Unexpected Results From an Observational Study of Shoplifting". Criminal Justice and Behavior. 33 (5): 652.

MethodThe goal of this study was to conduct a quantitative study of individuals as they move about a retail department store (David Jones) located in Garden City Booragoon, as a means to better articulate the expressive behavioural movements accompanied with shoplifting.

Material and equipmentI have opted to choose camera recording techniques,8 through which data collection was achieved through use of 1 CCTV camera (camera 12), operated by myself, the observer. I have confined my study to the operation of camera 12, because this camera overlooks the stores major shoplifting area, “The Fragrance Wall”. This method allowed all shopper actions who entered this department to be viewed in real time and videotaped for later analysis.

SamplingI adopted a behavioural sampling technique for observation 1, in which involved choosing a broad group of behaviours and following individuals when these behaviours were displayed.9 The individual had to show visible signs that they were engaged in actions “A”, “B”, “C” or “D” (description of actions available in observation 1). I attempted to use time sampling with intervals of 1 hour to calculate how many individuals would engage in the above mentioned behaviors. It became apparent that the scopes of these categories were time prohibitive, resulting in a large number of innocent shoppers being observed.

A revision of this protocol for observation 2 was required, where the same behavioural and time sampling techniques were chosen, but with significantly narrower categories. Individuals thus had to show that they were engaging in the modified actions of “A”, “B”, “C” or “D” (description of modified actions available in observation 2)

Data analysisI opted to use a form of open coding for observation 1, to determine what behaviours and themes were and were not indicative of shoplifting. From these findings, I subsequently adopted a form of axial coding for observation 2. This enabled me to construct a well-defined group of behavioral categories by incorporating what was witnessed in observation 1, honing in on the prevalent behaviors displayed by shoplifters. In order to better exemplify the results for both observations, I used a form of statistical analysis (shown in the results section of this paper), to demonstrate the effectiveness or ineffectiveness of these categories in percentage form.

8 Brandt, R.M. 1972. Studying Behaviour in Natural Settings. Holt, Rinehardt and Winston, New York9 Kellehear, above n 2, 131.

Observation 1: - analysis of individual behaviours and expressive movements

Observation 2 – modified analysis of individual behaviours and expressive movements

Results for observation 1Of these 4 categories, a total of 139 individuals were identified displaying these behaviours. Two individuals engaged in the act of shoplifting, one at 14:32 (“INDIVIDUAL 1”), and the other at 16:02 (“INDIVIDUAL 2”). Only categories “A” and “B” were satisfied, actioned by “INDIVIDUAL 2”. This represents a 0.71% success rate in the total of anticipated categories. I note that both shoplifters engaged in additional behaviours including biting nails and stretching repeatedly. These behaviours were used to construct the modified variables for observation 2.

Of the 22 individuals observed demonstrating (“A”), 1 of these individuals shoplifted, demonstrating a 4.54% success rate. Of the 48 individuals observed demonstrating (“B”), 1 of these individuals shoplifted, demonstrating a 2.08% success rate. Of the 12 individuals observed demonstrating (“C”) and the 57 individuals demonstrating (“D”), no individuals shoplifted, demonstrating a 0% success rate for both categories. These results significantly serve to diminish the validity of the stated hypothesis.

There was an unexpected anomaly confronted for “INDIVIDUAL 1”, who did not engage in any of the behavioural cues yet was still followed and found to shoplift. This will be expanded upon in the discussion component of this paper, highlighting whether there was bias present.

Results for observation 2Of these 4 modified categories, a total of 10 individuals were identified displaying these behaviours. Two individuals engaged in the act of shoplifting, one at 14:32 (“INDIVIDUAL 1”), and the other at 16:02 (“INDIVIDUAL 3”). Of these 4 categories, a total of 10 which were observed occurring, Individual 1 and individual 3 demonstrated a collective total of 8 behaviours. This represents an 80% success rate in the anticipated behavioural cues. Unlike observation 1, these individuals who engaged in the act of shoplifting were not observed adopting any supplementary behaviour. This is indicative that a large proportion of behavioural cues of shoplifters have been accounted for. I note that neither of the individuals in performing action D bit their nails or stretched repeatedly, negating that these actions are suggestive behaviours of shoplifting.

Of the 3 individuals observed demonstrating (“A”), 2 of these individuals shoplifted, demonstrating a 66.6% success rate. Of the 2 individuals observed demonstrating (“B”) and the 3 individuals demonstrating (“C”), all these individuals shoplifted, demonstrating a 100% success rate for both categories. Interestingly, both these behaviours were demonstrated by all shoplifters in both observation 1 and 2. Of the 3 individuals observed demonstrating (“D”), 2 of these individuals engaged in the act of shoplifting following this physical action, demonstrating a 66.6% success rate.

Individual 3 was deemed to satisfy categories “A” and “D”. Despite satisfying these categories, the individual did not shoplift. It was determined that this individual was looking for their mother who was employed as a Retail Assistant for David Jones. Although I believe little weight should be attributed to this finding, it is nonetheless a result which challenges the stated hypothesis.

DiscussionThe legitimacy of this study rests on two conclusions: namely, that observation 1 was categorically nebulous; resulting in 137 innocent shoppers being observed. The second conclusion is that observation 2 is a far more accurate representation of the larger retail offending population and their behaviours, resulting in 1 innocent shopper being observed. The result for observation two thus strongly supports the stated hypothesis. Additionally there appears to be a firm correlation between tampering with tags and dropping behind the fixtures, which were present for all shoplifters in observation 1 and 2. It could be deduced that these are strongest pre-emptive behavioural indicators of shoplifting.

For observation 1, I confronted an unexpected anomaly that turned my attention to the issue of surveillance bias. Individual 1 entered the department section wearing unkempt clothing and was noticeably young. I continued to follow this individual despite not satisfying any of the criterions. This suggests that a perceptual bias influenced my decision to follow this individual based on dress stereotypes and demographics, affirming the literature that security staff uses demographic factors more heavily than behavioural factors.10 Interestingly, this profiling did not produce a faulty judgment, therefore negating the findings that profiling results in the pursuit of ‘innocent’ shoppers.11 Alternatively, if no bias was present, then the criteria of suspicious behaviour should account for me breaking the sampling behavioural pattern, because the individual did engage in movements that were behavioural in nature (looking for shoplifting countermeasures and tearing the security tag off the item). This most importantly asserts my hypothesis that behaviours are indicative of shoplifting.

I recognize that several limitations hindered the overall contribution of this study. Quantitative data cannot tell an observer what was going through the mind of an offender while shoplifting. Qualitative research can. Ideally, behavioral surveys might be conducted and interviews of offenders regarding whether they were conscious of this behavior could make a meaningful difference to the validity of my hypothesis.

I found there may have been an ethical dilemma involved with the content of my findings. Having regard to this, the Nuremberg Code believes that voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. 12This was not granted. The issue of ethics in visual sociology should thus go beyond the use of cameras and other ‘snooping’ devices,13 to respect the autonomy and confidence of individuals, which is in this case, shoppers.

Conclusion10 Murphy, above n 6.11 Dabney, Above n 712 International Military Tribunal. 1949. Trials of war criminals before the Nuernberg military tribunals under Control Council law no.10, vol 2:181. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Govt. Print Off. 181.13 Hughes, Jason. 1986. “Trend Report: Theory and Practice of Visual Sociology." In Sage visual methods. London: Sage Publications Ltd. 55.

Observation two’s analysis is the more telling indication that expressive behavioural movements act as significant indicators for shoplifting behaviours. This study seeks to develop and identify expressive behaviors involved in shoplifting, ones that could serve as a basis for policy-makers, police officials and the public to adopt. To expedite this work, additional studies that relies on a larger area of the store, additional CCTV cameras and a more tightly controlled experimental design of both qualitative and quantitative research methods is needed to completely explore the validity of these findings. The questions still remains whether it is appropriate to visually record and study these behavioural patterns, based on the issue of ethics and whether this study is a form of discriminatory profiling in itself. Nonetheless, this type of information would go a long way in helping security officers and institutions alike better understand and implement effective training regimes in identifying prospective shoplifters.