Research Matters

Jessica Salerno on what we get wrong with 911 calls - Research Matters S2E2

• Season 2 • Episode 2

Share episode

Use Left/Right to seek, Home/End to jump to start or end. Hold shift to jump forward or backward.

0:00 | 27:58

On this episode of Research Matters: Can the way you sound on a 911 call make you a suspect? Cornell psychologist Jessica Salerno, associate professor in the College of Human Ecology and associate member of the Cornell Law School faculty, reveals her lab’s eye-opening research showing that callers who don’t sound “emotional enough” – whether they’re calm, hesitant or just processing trauma – can be judged suspicious, putting them at risk of unfair treatment. Tune in to learn why your tone shouldn’t determine your credibility and what we all can do to rethink how we judge people in crisis. Watch here.

Jessica Salerno:

I remember calling 911 and I could not process any information. My attention was so riveted on this that I could, it sounded like the 911 operator was speaking a foreign language. So the operator kept saying, ma'am, I need your address. And I kept saying, you have to come, he's beating her. And the problem is, is our research is showing is that police officers expect 911 callers to be very clear communicators because they assume if you're trying to help someone, you should be trying to convey that information clearly, efficiently, but people are freaking out.

Laura Reiley:

Hello and welcome to Research Matters, the video podcast where we bring you real research that has real world consequences. My name is Laura Reiley. Today we are speaking with Jessica Salerno. She is in the Department of Psychology and also associate member of the law faculty at Cornell University. And we are talking about 911 calls, something that I think the average viewer here is going to have a lot of curiosity about. Welcome.

Jessica Salerno:

Thank you so much for having me.

Laura Reiley:

Great. All right. Well, so let's start with what your research actually shows about 911 calls. What prompted you to look into this and what were the things that you were initially looking for?

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah, so what inspired the line of research was, so I study uh false convictions a lot. So false convictions is when someone who's innocent has been wrongly convicted of a crime they didn't commit and can reveal a lot about how the legal system works and different errors that can happen. So we have a lot of research about how once someone becomes a suspect, the investigation can turn into kind of tunnel vision and result into through confirmation bias into wrongful convictions. We were interested in Why do innocent people get targeted in the first place? What is it about that person that led the police to suspect them? And I watch a lot of documentaries, probably not surprisingly, about true crime and things like that. And I noticed a pattern where oftentimes when someone's wrongfully convicted, you hear the detective when interviewed say that something about their behavior they thought was off. It was unexpected. It wasn't what they thought it should be. And so oftentimes I was hearing detectives say that people at crime scenes or who called 911 weren't exhibiting what they thought was the normal emotion for the situation. So we wanted to run some studies...

Laura Reiley:

Was the normal, was that hysteria? Like what was, what's normal?

Jessica Salerno:

Well, so this is the problem that there really isn't a normal and pretty much any level of emotion can be used against you, but they certainly expected when someone, especially when someone called 911 to report that a loved one was hurt, they expected them to be showing some emotion. And when they didn't, it was highly, highly suspicious.

Laura Reiley:

So is this systematic, is this in kind of police literature or training that here's what to look for uh in someone who calls 911?

Jessica Salerno:

So that's starting, unfortunately. So a lot of this came, I think, out of just police officers' hunches. Being detectives for a long time, they come to expect certain things. But there has recently been some trainings that have started that claim they can teach officers what behaviors to look for on a 911 call that indicates the person might have killed the person that they are reporting was hurt. So it actually involves checklists of behaviors, guilty behaviors and innocent behaviors. Unfortunately, that research that it was based on had a lot of flaws in it, and many scientists have tried to replicate it and failed. So this is a really pretty dangerous training out there now that that cops are getting that are kind of misleading them to be looking for things that they think mean guilt that actually are not predictive at all.

Laura Reiley:

All right, so you have two different papers that kind of get at this from slightly different angles. So what were the experiments that you ran? What was the data you used? And what did you find?

Jessica Salerno:

Yes, so we ran a set of studies. The first paper was really trying to focus in on the expectations for what the right level of emotion is and what happens when you violate it. So we ran a bunch of experiments where we actually hired a whole bunch of voice actors and we had them perform a 911 call three times. One with low emotion, one with moderate emotion, and one with high emotion. And we played those calls for both laypeople and actual police officers. And we asked them how suspicious they thought they were. And the nice thing about this kind of experiment is we held everything else constant. So everyone they heard reported the exact same crime with the exact same words. And the only thing that was different was how emotional they were on the call. And we found study after study after study, people who failed to express emotion were seen as significantly more suspicious than those who who expressed at least moderate emotion, even though they're reporting the same thing and saying the same words. Just that emotional tone is really what was driving suspicion in both police officers and lay people.

Laura Reiley:

If it's incorrect that people who exhibit low emotion are inherently more suspicious or more likely to have been implicated in the crime somehow, what are the other reasons that they could be not emotive?

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah, so this is the big problem with sort of expecting the right behavior on a 911 call is when I think when police officers don't see it, they assume it's because they're lying or that they are, um you know — we've actually found in our research that when you don't express emotion, people make different moral inferences about you. They think that you are the type of person who is more capable of doing immoral things and hurting another person and less likely to be a vulnerable victim in the situation when in fact there are lots of reasons why people might not, express emotion, particularly in such a tragic high-stakes situation. Oftentimes when people undergo extreme trauma like a violent crime or finding a murdered body on the floor people go into shock, people dissociate. A lot of people with prior trauma tend to shut down emotionally. People have personality differences. There are cultural differences that make it less likely you're going to express emotion. Some people are neurodivergent and aren't capable of expressing emotion. So there are lots of reasons why people might not be expressing emotion in the situation other than they're hiding something or you know there's something wrong with them.

Laura Reiley:

So is it, is there gender difference? Are there differences by race? Or is it an introversion, extroversion thing? Or what are, how do those things factor in?

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah, so they're actually, I mean, we're kind of excited about this area of research because there hasn't been much research done yet. So we are trying to get at, specifically in 911 calls, are there racial differences? Are there gender differences? Things like that, which we're currently in the middle of right now. And we don't actually have data for yet. But in general, there's certainly research out there that, you know, men and women express different levels of emotion. Different cultures tend to express more emotion. Americans tend to be a little more emotional than, for example, Asian cultures or you know people in the UK or things like that. Certainly there's personality differences. The list goes on and on about things that could change how much emotion you might express.

Laura Reiley:

So does it seem kind of uh uniquely American that low emotion is suspicious? It seems like if you look at, I don't know, I mean, I know Europeans are always mocking American advertising because we're always like, ecstatically joyful, you know, with the open mouth. You know, I mean, we're...

Jessica Salerno:

The big smile on the passport pictures they make fun of, yeah.

Laura Reiley:

Women smiling and eating a salad is like such a trope. But like, is that something that seems unique to the United States or is this prevalent everywhere?

Jessica Salerno:

I wouldn't say it's only an American phenomenon. I think there are stereotypes of fiery emotive Latinos and things like that. So don't know that it's necessarily uniquely American, but I certainly think there's cultural differences across the world.

Laura Reiley:

So in terms of 911 calls, do you have like an inexhaustible reservoir of ones to look at? How hard is it to get access to them? And then how hard is it to compare those calls to what the outcome was in these cases or their, you know, perceived culpability or how it plays out?

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah, it's a lot of work. It's actually a lot harder than you would think. We have we're really lucky. We have a grant from the National Science Foundation we've had for about three years now where we're trying to build a large database of real 911 calls. We started off asking police departments. We made a lot of enemies in police departments because we were requesting so many of them. And so we've started scraping the internet. We've started trying to contact attorneys in these cases to try to get them. And so it's been years. We've we've built a database of about 900 calls now. And we've also, I'm very fortunate, I have a very talented and large lab here at Cornell and my previous institution that spent years taking each of those calls and trying to track down what happened in the real case. For example, did the person who called 911 actually do it? Were they never convicted? And we actually even have a small subset of calls where we know that the person who called was wrongfully convicted of the incident that they were reporting.

Laura Reiley:

So do you integrate with things like the Innocence Project or some of the kind of bespoke journalistic institutions that are now working on exonerating people who were wrongly incarcerated?

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah, I mean the Innocence Project is amazing. We've definitely been working with them in some ways. They did help us get our hands on some of these calls where we know essentially ground truth. This is someone who called for help, a loved one was hurt, and they were wrongfully convicted of murdering that person. We've also been working on some cases with them of people who were actually targeted because a police officer had one of these trainings where they were told to look for certain behaviors that they thought were guilty. And then turns out, you know, this person, we believe now to be innocent. We're trying to get them a new trial and get them out of jail.

Laura Reiley:

Wow, so it really could reverse the outcome for some people.

Jessica Salerno:

We hope so, but it's a long, long, hard battle to get innocent people out of prison.

Laura Reiley:

Sure. So I guess I'm wondering what kind of training, dispatch people for 911, those are, are they rank and file police officers? Do they have totally separate training? Like who are they? Because they seem like the gatekeepers in a lot of ways, or the people who are asking the questions that prompt or elicit particular responses from a caller.

Jessica Salerno:

Yes, so 911 dispatchers are a separate group of people who work in the police department, but they are not police officers typically, although of course some people might switch jobs. So they get different training. Both 911 dispatchers and police officers are eligible to be part of these. It's called 911 call analysis training. So both groups can get training in this. But we do see oftentimes the dispatchers are the one to flag bizarre behavior to the detectives and say, hey, you should listen to this 911 call. There sounds like there's something off about them. They aren't sounding concerned enough. You might want to look into them, which we're thinking could be one of the first original entry points into an innocent person starting to be suspected.

Laura Reiley:

All right, so I'm actually curious from a consumer perspective, probably, I'm going to guess that everybody listening has had to call 911 once...

Jessica Salerno:

I have no idea what base rates are.

Laura Reiley:

But is there anything people should bear in mind? I mean, what should, if you want to be a good citizen, what are the things you should bear in mind when you actually call, pick up that phone and dial 911?

Jessica Salerno:

It's a hard question. And this is a question I honestly dread because this is what I fear the most learning this is that people are going to hear about this and they're not going to want to call 911 to help someone because they're afraid of being targeted or so the 911 system was actually inspired by the Kitty Genovese incident, some...

Laura Reiley:

Remind us what that was.

Jessica Salerno:

This was a woman who was attacked and raped and murdered in a large kind of city area where there were lots of bystanders and no one called the police.

Laura Reiley:

This is the, oh yeah, yeah, yeah. Because everyone thought everyone else was doing the call.

Jessica Salerno:

Exactly. It led to some psychological phenomenon now known as the bystander effect. And so that inspired them to try to come up with a system of an easy way that people can call and help other people. So what's hard is it's very hard to give advice about what to do if you need to call 911.

Laura Reiley:

I mean, make the call.

Jessica Salerno:

I mean, that's the thing. We definitely want people to call. I think the onus really here is on the legal system and police officers to educate themselves rather than telling people calling 911. So I actually, I remember I had to call 911 once. And it actually inspired some of our research questions because it was a ...

Laura Reiley:

Wonderful, isn't that great?

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah, it was a very telling experience that I would not have expected. So I was living in Chicago at the time and I looked out the window and there was a man, a woman walking with a suitcase and he attacked her, I think to maybe steal her suitcase. So he kind of threw her up against a car and was kind of roughing her up. By no means the most heinous crime witnessed ever, but was still very disturbing. And I remember calling 911 and I could not process any information. My attention was so riveted on this that I could, it sounded like the 911 operator was speaking a foreign language. So the operator kept saying, ma'am, I need your address. And I kept saying, you have to come, he's beating her. And she said, ma'am, I need your address. And I said, you have to come, he's beating her. And I just, couldn't understand, I couldn't process anything. The kind of, and I don't know that I would call it the level of trauma, but that focused attention made it very hard to be a clear communicator. And the problem is, is our research is showing is that police officers expect 911 callers to be very clear communicators, because they assume if you're trying to help someone, you should be trying to convey that information clearly, efficiently. But people are freaking out. They're upset. They're emotional. They can't pay attention to things. And so that kind of what we call cognitive load or that problem communicating is getting turned into something suspicious. Typically, I actually heard an interesting anecdote of a woman who was a 911 dispatcher. And she had told her daughter, tried to train her to be a good 911 caller, which is: be calm, be very clear. But what's interesting about that is if you're calm, that could trigger suspicion. So there's really, I mean, there is no normal, there's no way. Like even if you told people to act a certain way in a 911 call, people don't have the ability. They're under extreme stress, it's a high-stakes situation. So expecting people to do the right thing on a 911 call I think is the wrong way to go.

Laura Reiley:

So what are the kind of red flag, the five red flag behaviors?

Jessica Salerno:

Yes, so the things that we've identified in our research that trigger suspicion are, so we've talked about one already, which is emotionality. People expect high emotion. There's another that's very highly related, which is urgency. They're really expecting the caller to be urgent. So things like immediately demanding for help for the victim and being very expressive about that. The things that increase suspicion are all similarly related. One is what we call information management, which is the idea that if you kind of perceive a caller, like they're gatekeeping information, or maybe they're being a little evasive, or they're um making very strategic decisions about what to say. That's going to trigger suspicion. A similar one is impression management. If you seem really concerned about getting the operator on your side or liking you, making a good impression on the 911 operator, that's going to trigger suspicion. And the third is what we call cognitive load, which is kind of a jargony term for just having trouble communicating, not communicating clearly, not being really...

Laura Reiley:

Wait, is that a that a suspicious thing or not suspicious?

Jessica Salerno:

That's a suspicious thing. Which is a big problem because it's kind of a hallmark of, you know, when someone calls 911 and is really upset they're going to have trouble communicating clearly.

Laura Reiley:

So do cell phones, because there is some ability to track geographic location, does that make 911 calls easier for the caller? If they're not, I'm at the corner of blank and blank, do they have to still? Because I think that people can find you, right, if you're calling from a cell.

Jessica Salerno:

Yes, I think the problem is that the 911 operator is trained to ask for a lot of details about what are going on. So there's a lot of Q&A that's happening that even if they don't have to provide the location, they're being expected to provide a lot of detail about what's going on.

Laura Reiley:

Okay, so are non-native English speakers, do they tend to be more suspicious in your...

Jessica Salerno:

That's a great question. So we have not investigated that. That's on our list of what to do next. So now we have a really nice big database where we have a lot of natural variation in accents or, you know, fluency with English or things like that that we'll be able to look at. You know, if you're perceiving the person as of a different race or having trouble speaking English, you know, does that change suspicion? So that's on the list. Stay tuned for that one.

Laura Reiley:

I wonder in the current climate, it's kind of immigrant status and there might be a lot of questions about people's suspiciousness. All right, so tell me a little bit about kind of the real-world consequences of a red flag being raised. How does that cascade?

Jessica Salerno:

Yes, so the initial trigger of suspicion sets off a very cumulative cascade of confirmation bias through investigations that can lead to that person being wrongfully convicted. There's a lot of literature about this in psychology. Once you are suspecting someone, confirmation bias means you're going to pay more attention to evidence that fits with that suspect. You're going to start ignoring evidence that doesn't um make them seem guilty. A lot of times in investigations, might lead to police officers, for example, engaging in more coercive interrogations to try to get that suspect to confess. And once someone confesses, that's kind of the final nail in the coffin that can lead to a conviction. So essentially, it's kind of the first thing that triggers a potentially really problematic investigation.

Laura Reiley:

Are there ways to safeguard against that? Are there ways of having some kind of double blind, or I don't know, that you have another investigator who doesn't know the suspiciousness that's been raised by a previous one?

Jessica Salerno:

It's tough. So there are suggested reforms. Generally speaking, not all departments, but the system is pretty resistant to them. But there are some suggestions, things like, you know, investigators being forced to play sort of a devil's advocate in their own investigation. So if they have a suspect having structural things where they have to list other suspects and why they aren't, you know, investigating them more and things like that. So one thing that we've discovered is that once someone is a suspect, sometimes forensic evidence, the interpretation of it can get skewed. So for example, if someone who's comparing two fingerprints to see if they're a match, if they know the person confessed, they're more likely to say it's a match than if they don't. It's again, that confirmation bias kind of thing. So there are reforms suggested where, well, you're not just looking at two fingerprints. Maybe you're looking at a fingerprint lineup. You don't know which one is the suspect, which one matches the best, things like that. So, we're definitely all working on ways to try to combat confirmation bias, but it's just one of the most pervasive psychological phenomenons we know of. It's very hard to break. So you really have to kind of impose structural things to not let people's confirmation bias affect things too much.

Laura Reiley:

So we've mostly been talking about confirmation bias uh in kind of a policing context, but obviously for jury trials, 911 calls are occasionally used as evidence. How does a jury get affected by things like this and how is it used against suspects?

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah. We're actually currently about to launch a new study that tests exactly this, how do mocker jurors react when they hear an unemotional 911 call and also hear testimony from a police officer or 911 dispatcher talking about whether it was normal or not. So we don't have the data yet, but we're predicting that... So the way that these are often used in court and where I've been helping with Innocence Project cases is one of these police officers or dispatchers who's taken this training gets up and says, I knew this person was guilty from the moment they called 911. Let me walk you through it. So they play the 911 call and they basically talk them through all the abnormal behaviors on the 911 call and why they were indicators of guilt, which we now know because of the science is completely false testimony. And so we've seen many cases where the jury convicted. We can't know, obviously, from those anecdotes, whether that was the thing that really, you know, contributed. So we are going to start running some systematic studies to see if jurors are randomly assigned to hear that call and this testimony, are they suddenly thinking that person is more guilty than others? Because there's a lot of real world cases where we see that play out.

Laura Reiley:

And so things like neurodivergence, does a jury have the kind of, I don't know, expertise to know how to contextualize something like that? Is someone automatically more suspicious because they do something that seems out of the norm?

Jessica Salerno:

Probably. There's one recent case that is really, really tragic and upsetting. There's a man named Robert Roberson who's on death row right now. And 20 years ago, his daughter, he brought her to the ER and he ended up being convicted of murdering her when she died. When we now realize she actually had a chronic illness and she died of pneumonia and complications with medications and things like that. But he's still on death row. And what started the whole suspicion towards him was he showed up to the the hospital. He brought his daughter who was very sick and in a very dire situation, but he was autistic and so he wasn't expressing much concern or outward emotion. And the nurses and the doctors became very suspicious because they thought his demeanor was lacking emotion and they came to suspect him, which ended up snowballing into a theory that it was child abuse and shaken baby syndrome.

Laura Reiley:

Shaken baby syndrome — something that seems to not not it hasn't been debunked but it you know it was clearly something that was...

Jessica Salerno:

It led to a lot of false convictions of people who —

Laura Reiley:

The poor parents.

Jessica Salerno:

It's it's really terrible. Actually, the two cases I'm working on now are both women who were caregiving for small babies who had medical conditions, who called 911 and ended up being convicted of murdering them. It's a very common profile that we're seeing a lot, which is really interesting to me, too, because when I kind of had a stereotype about wrongful convictions, that there was a grisly murder. The police had all this pressure from the public to find the right person and that pressure ended up leading them to the wrong person and all that. But these are what the Innocence Project calls no crime convictions, where there wasn't even really a crime to find a culprit for. It was a tragic health condition that got turned into a crime because someone was acting in a way that the police officers thought was abnormal.

Laura Reiley:

Well, you've also done work on anger, specifically gender and anger in a courtroom. So it's interesting that in some ways under emoting is suspicious.

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah.

Laura Reiley:

And too much anger can also count against someone either... Talk a little bit about that.

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah, it's a contradiction I've been grappling with, but I think is really interesting. So I have a line of work that looks at particularly gender differences in expressing anger and how much influence you can have over other people. So I was looking at this in a slightly different context, which was jury deliberations or attorneys arguing in court. We tend to assume that anger is a sign of conviction. So it tends to be very persuasive. We expect, you know all of us watching courtroom dramas, we expect the attorney to get up there and slam the table and be convicted. But it's a very male- driven expectation. And we know from society that women are often penalized for expressing anger. So we had a bunch of experiments showing that when you have either jurors or attorneys who are making arguments to their co-jurors or on people in court, and they express the exact same arguments with anger compared to not, men get more persuasive, but women get less persuasive and lose it.

Laura Reiley:

That seems very consistent with other contexts outside of the courtroom.

Jessica Salerno:

For sure.

Laura Reiley:

So okay, so it does, it leaves you a very narrow window emotionally.

Jessica Salerno:

It does, especially for female attorneys. We study sort gender bias against women attorneys a lot. And it's totally a double bind. Good attorneys are expected to portray male traits like being dominant and angry. And so you either look like a bad lawyer because you're not being angry or you look like, you know, a bad woman if you're expressing anger. But we thought this was interesting because in those studies, we found that emotion was bad for women. But in our studies with 911, it's good to express emotion. And I think my theory is that it has to do with those were women who are trying to have influence. They are trying to have power, and that emotion wasn't good. Here, they're victims, and we expect emotion from victims. I think there's something about —

Laura Reiley:

That makes complete sense. All right, so law and human behavior seems like this wonderful uh niche that you've carved out. What are the next big questions for you that kind of encompass that?

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah, well, we have, like I said, fabulous lab here at Cornell. We have a lot of things we're working on. So we're going to continue this work with 911 and wrongful convictions with our grant. So we're building this database to hopefully provide some data about, is there a normal? You know, when you look at hundreds and hundreds of 911 calls, is there a normal behavior? We've also started looking at whether these biases we see against unemotional callers generalize both to not just guilty people, but also innocent callers. And we're finding that that is the case. We're looking at starting to look at the gender biases. We have a lot of other projects. We have one that we're really excited about, about the diversity of juries. So there's a real issue we have in the United States where jurisdictions with a lot of people of color end up with what they call whitewashed juries, all white juries, even though lots of the jurisdiction is of color. And so we're looking at, we partnered with Arizona who made a big legal reform to see if they could make changes to the jury selection process to try to increase diversity on juries, so we're working on that, which we're really excited about. There's honestly endless things...

Laura Reiley:

Do they do that via mandate in terms of that it has to be representative of the community in which like how do you do that? How do you say you can't say like two African Americans, three Asians.

Jessica Salerno:

No, you cannot do that. The legal system does not like that. It's interesting. Canada actually does that. They have racial quotas. um

Laura Reiley:

That seems like the wrong — Canada, no thank you.

Jessica Salerno:

Yeah, so what they what Arizona did is so research has shown that so when lawyers want to select a jury, they can kick people off a jury two different ways one for cause which is saying there is a specific reason this person will be biased therefore they should be off and then what we call peremptory challenges, which is they don't need a reason. They can just say I don't like the looks of that one, they're off and they have a certain number of those. So research has indicated that those are the challenges where they end up kicking off a lot of the people of color disproportionately. So Arizona banned that type of challenge completely, which the lawyers hate. Judges like it. Attorneys really, really hate it.

Laura Reiley:

Is there a way to assess outcome thus far or is it too early to say?

Jessica Salerno:

That's what we're doing. I can give a teaser. We have analyzed data. We were about to submit it, so I haven't been through peer review yet. But what we're finding is that it helps the situation, but it doesn't solve the entire problem. So essentially, after they banned peremptory challenges, most racial groups were better represented on juries. But there's still a big gap relative to their presence in the population. And we think it's because the pool who shows up to the courtroom in the first place is skewed. So it helps. But if they really want to solve the whole problem, they got to make the jury pool more representative as well.

Laura Reiley:

That makes sense. All right, for listeners or viewers who want to learn more about 911 calls or about wrongful convictions, do you have a go-to, either a book or a Substack or a podcast or anything that you think is great?

Jessica Salerno:

I mean... Yeah, I'll put in some plugs. Uh. Personally, I'd say read our articles. But aside from that, there is a fantastic set of journalism articles from ProPublica from uh a reporter named Brett Murphy. He wrote three long form articles about this, which are really fantastic about the 911 stuff. Uh. Saul Kassin wrote a book, I think a year or two ago called Duped. It's a Popular Press book, but it's all about wrongful convictions and why people confess to things they didn't do. And it's fabulous. It gets the science really right, but it's also just he's a wonderful storyteller.

Laura Reiley:

Good read, kind of, all right, juicy.

Jessica Salerno:

A lot of good. I mean, good stories, a lot of really tragic, terrible stories. But fascinating.

Laura Reiley:

We all like, you know, true crime. It's, it's fascinating. All right . Well, we are I feel like we could go on for quite a while, but uh thank you for joining us and for doing this vital research.

Jessica Salerno:

Thank you so much for helping us get it out there.

Laura Reiley:

Yes, and so I'm Laura Reiley. This has been Research Matters. To learn more about Professor Salerno's work, visit the Cornell Psychology Department website or search for 911 Caller Suspicion Study online. And until next time, stay curious, stay compassionate, and stay informed.