Nine-one-one callers who fail to evoke expected levels of anxiety and emotion can become primary suspects in the very case they reported, a peer-reviewed study done through Cornell University found.
The researchers, Bean et al., began this research to better understand what leads to wrongful convictions and why an innocent person “initially falls under suspicion.”
The researchers investigated four studies that examined which behaviors exhibited by 911 callers trigger suspicion from both the average person and the police.
Methodology
In studies 1, 2, and 4, participants were average people listening to 911 calls, while in study 3, participants were police officers. Participants either heard a real 911 call (studies 1 and 4) or a more controlled, stimulated call (studies 2 and 3) by a male or female caller.
They then evaluated participants’ immediate impressions and survey responses to identify behaviors that more often triggered suspicion of the caller.
Participants rated the callers on five behavioral dimensions: urgency, emotionality, cognitive load, impression management, and information management. The team then assessed how these factors played into “suspicion and violation of expectation” and whether gender influenced these outcomes.
Key findings
Emotionality appeared to be the behavior most notable to participants, as the caller’s level of emotion was spontaneously mentioned the most (77-85%) throughout the calls.
Lower suspicion was associated with high levels of urgency and emotionality. In comparison, higher suspicion was associated with high information management (appearing to control or withhold details) and impression management (seemingly too polite and controlled).
The results were consistent across real and stimulated studies and were replicated in a fourth study. These findings suggested that both the average and professional observer rely on behavioral expectations when forming opinions about the callers’ credibility.
Interpretation and implications
These findings suggest that violating socially constructed expectations during a 911 call could trigger suspicion and expose the caller to investigation.
Bean et al. cite various instances in which a lack of expected response led to wrongful convictions. They described instances such as Thomas Perez’s false conviction of his father's murder because the 911 dispatcher was convinced “something was off.”
In another instance, Gary Gauger was labeled as “flat” in his call about his parents’ death and was coerced into a false confession.
These moments exemplify how confirmation bias can play a substantial role in false convictions and the incarceration of those wrongly accused.
When a caller deviates from the expected emotional response, they are immediately put under suspicion, when often these are just normal responses to trauma.
Because 911 calls occur in high-stress situations, responses that are polite, calm, and composed may reflect coping mechanisms rather than a guilty conscience.
Misinterpreting these behaviors could lead to premature assumptions of guilt and unjust convictions, sometimes even imprisonment.
The researchers emphasize that, though there has been some effort to provide improved training in deciphering 911 calls, these courses aren’t supported by scientific evidence demonstrating that the supposed ‘guilt cues’ are accurate reflections of culpability.
Bean et al. caution that these behavioral indicators are often inaccurate and more often lead to wrongful convictions rather than accurate ones. They continue to highlight that recognizing the validity of a variety of emotional responses to high-stress situations is critical in improving guilt acceptance and minimizing wrongful convictions.