Deception Detection: Using Machine Learning to Analyze 911 Calls

This study examined the use of machine learning in detecting deception among 210 individuals reporting homicides or missing persons to 911. The sample included an equal number of false allegation callers (FAC) and true report callers (TRC) identified through case adjudication. Independent coders, unaware of callers' deception, analyzed each 911 call using 86 behavioral cues. Using the random forest model with k-fold cross-validation and repeated sampling, the study achieved an accuracy rate of 68.2% for all 911 calls, with sensitivity and specificity at 68.7% and 67.7%, respectively. For homicide reports, accuracy was higher at 71.2%, with a sensitivity of 77.3% but slightly lower specificity at 65.0%. In contrast, accuracy decreased to 61.4% for missing person reports, with a sensitivity of 49.1% and notably higher specificity at 73.6%. Beyond accuracy, key cues distinguishing FACs from TRCs were identified and included cues like "Blames others," "Is self-dramatizing," and "Is uncertain and insecure."

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
2024-11-07
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241287064
Primary Topic
Deception detection and forensic psychology
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Deception Detection: Using Machine Learning to Analyze 911 Calls

Patrick M. Markey, Brooke Berry, Erica B. Slotter, Jennie Dapice
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Deception detection and forensic psychology
article

Deception Detection: Using Machine Learning to Analyze 911 Calls

Patrick M. Markey, Brooke Berry, Erica B. Slotter, Jennie Dapice
article en

Abstract

This study examined the use of machine learning in detecting deception among 210 individuals reporting homicides or missing persons to 911. The sample included an equal number of false allegation callers (FAC) and true report callers (TRC) identified through case adjudication. Independent coders, unaware of callers' deception, analyzed each 911 call using 86 behavioral cues. Using the random forest model with k-fold cross-validation and repeated sampling, the study achieved an accuracy rate of 68.2% for all 911 calls, with sensitivity and specificity at 68.7% and 67.7%, respectively. For homicide reports, accuracy was higher at 71.2%, with a sensitivity of 77.3% but slightly lower specificity at 65.0%. In contrast, accuracy decreased to 61.4% for missing person reports, with a sensitivity of 49.1% and notably higher specificity at 73.6%. Beyond accuracy, key cues distinguishing FACs from TRCs were identified and included cues like "Blames others," "Is self-dramatizing," and "Is uncertain and insecure."

Personality and Social Psychology BulletinVol. 52(4)
Villanova University (US)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 74%
Deception detection and forensic psychology
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.

Deception Detection: Using Machine Learning to Analyze 911 Calls — Patrick M. Markey, Brooke Berry, et al. · Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (2024) | TGRS Research Map | TGRS