This study aimed to identify behavioral indicators of shoplifting by observing shoppers' movements via CCTV footage in a department store. In the first observation, broad behavioral categories were observed but yielded a low success rate in identifying shoplifters. The categories were refined for the second observation, which observed fewer people but had a much higher success rate. Key behaviors like tampering with tags and dropping items behind fixtures were exhibited by all identified shoplifters. However, the study had limitations like an inability to understand shoplifters' mindsets and potential ethical issues with covert observation. More research is still needed to fully validate the findings while addressing ethical concerns.

1. Introduction
I 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 review
Studies 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. 116
3 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, 523
5 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.

2. Method
The 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 equipment
I 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.
Sampling
I 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 analysis
I 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 York
9 Kellehear, above n 2, 131.

3. Observation 1: - analysis of individual behaviours and expressive movements
Observation 2 – modified analysis of individual behaviours and expressive movements

4. Results for observation 1
Of 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 2
Of 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.

5. Discussion
The 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.
10 Murphy, above n 6.
11 Dabney, Above n 7
12 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.

6. Conclusion
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.