欺骗检测:使用机器学习分析 911 电话。

IF 3.4 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin Pub Date : 2024-11-07 DOI:10.1177/01461672241287064
Patrick M Markey, Jennie Dapice, Brooke Berry, Erica B Slotter
{"title":"欺骗检测:使用机器学习分析 911 电话。","authors":"Patrick M Markey, Jennie Dapice, Brooke Berry, Erica B Slotter","doi":"10.1177/01461672241287064","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.\"</p>","PeriodicalId":19834,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","volume":" ","pages":"1461672241287064"},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Deception Detection: Using Machine Learning to Analyze 911 Calls.\",\"authors\":\"Patrick M Markey, Jennie Dapice, Brooke Berry, Erica B Slotter\",\"doi\":\"10.1177/01461672241287064\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><p>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.\\\"</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":19834,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"1461672241287064\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":3.4000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-11-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"102\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241287064\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"心理学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241287064","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

本研究考察了机器学习在检测 210 名向 911 报警的凶杀或失踪人员中的欺骗行为方面的应用。样本中包括相同数量的虚假指控呼叫者(FAC)和通过案件判决确定的真实报告呼叫者(TRC)。独立的编码员在不了解呼叫者欺骗行为的情况下,使用 86 个行为线索对每个 911 呼叫进行分析。该研究使用 k 倍交叉验证和重复采样的随机森林模型,使所有 911 电话的准确率达到 68.2%,灵敏度和特异度分别为 68.7% 和 67.7%。凶杀案报告的准确率较高,为 71.2%,灵敏度为 77.3%,但特异性略低,为 65.0%。相比之下,失踪人口报告的准确率下降到 61.4%,灵敏度为 49.1%,特异性则明显较高,为 73.6%。除了准确性之外,还发现了区分 FAC 和 TRC 的关键线索,包括 "指责他人"、"自我夸大 "和 "不确定和不安全 "等线索。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
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."

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
9.20
自引率
5.00%
发文量
116
期刊介绍: The Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is the official journal for the Society of Personality and Social Psychology. The journal is an international outlet for original empirical papers in all areas of personality and social psychology.
期刊最新文献
Extreme Reactions to Globalization: Investigating Indirect, Longitudinal, and Experimental Effects of the Globalization-Radicalization Nexus. Understanding the Magnitude of Hypocrisy in Moral Contradictions: The Role of Surprise at Violating Strong Attitudes. Do Good Citizens Look to the Future? The Link Between National Identification and Future Time Perspective and Their Role in Explaining Citizens' Reactions to Conflicts Between Short-Term and Long-Term National Interests. How Elicitation Procedure Shapes Beliefs About Others' Affective Responses to Action and Inaction. Beautiful Strangers: Physical Evaluation of Strangers Is Influenced by Friendship Expectation.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1