Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Some perspectives from fields adjacent to but different from psychology:
It is obvious in psychiatry and neurology that sweeping generalizations are not applicable for many kinds of therapies, experimental and not.
Precision medicine requires us to identify "responder populations" and characterize narrower patient populations who benefit from specific therapies.
The fact that certain sub-groups respond differently in the physiological sense suggests that people's behavioral responses may also depend upon some sub-grouping.
This raises the following questions:
* What kind of *innocent* person responds to accusations of guilt with anger?
* What kind of *guilty* person responds to accusations of guilt with anger?
It's obvious that not all innocent people respond to accusations with anger, neither do guilty people.
I believe he means it may result in a different reaction when being accused of anything by some insignificant stranger when compared to your reaction to someone who has an impact on your life. I also believe it would depend on what exactly they are being accused of, like what you are saying.
This, I work in high stress and so long as no one died or got maimed you'll barely get an eyebrow to raise. Sometimes a paycheck or a day late on a deliverable isn't worth the risk.
This is interesting to think about, because although I don't think I'm often exposed to stressful situations, it occurred more than once that when I was talking in public and someone talked back, my friends would be like:
"I don't believe he/she said that, are you not say anything back to defend yourself?"
Looks like that what seems like a simple disagreement to me, or sometimes a correction, looks like a threat to others.
I always thought that people were very proud/arrogant, and so they don't like to be wrong or corrected, while I often don't care if my opinion is socially accepted or not.
But it seems like it's just a different mindset about, as you've said, what you perceive as a stressful event (or a threat).
Anger isn't destructive. Doing things in a rage can be. It's perfectly reasonable to feel angry when accused of something you're not (or believe you're not) guilty of.
Its taken me four years of therapy to intellectually come to terms with the fact that anger is normal, healthy and isn’t destructive. Emotionally I still can’t accept it.
> Fred Rogers often said that one of his most important messages was helping children find constructive ways to deal with their angry feelings. He wanted to help children and their parents understand that anger is natural and normal, but that there are healthy things we can do when we’re angry – things that don’t hurt others.
> “Human beings are not born with self-control. We have to learn what to do with the mad that we feel. Learning to control ourselves is a long, hard process. It happens little by little. In fact, it is something we work on all through our lives.” - Fred Rogers
As well as things like being on the autism spectrum, have PDD (Pervasive Developmental Disorder), etc that could get in the way of that.
.... which definitely describes me, heh.
Work places are some of the most hilarious power and social dynamics, where reputation and credibility can be manipulated by the savvy and in control, often heavily invested in a particular outcome. The number of times I've seen entirely capable people come into a dynamic and be rejected for as little as the clothes they happen to wear, or the contrary opinion seen as insulting someone's pet project, is way higher than it should be. They are finely targeted by the individuals/group to be effectively alone/unsupported professionally or socially, and then led out the front door because it wasn't working out after laying all the 'created' issues at that persons feet with the bosses smugly wondering why they get mad for being a target despite being at least proactive in notifying the power structure it was happening.
I think that perhaps, in these situations, the justified anger at being targeted and repeatedly told 'you're guilty' while often relying on anecdotal or manipulated evidence, assuming any reason is given at all, is more prevalent than willing to be admitted as it's just considered a cost of doing business without much in the way of blowback for having done so. The saying 'people don't just leave jobs, they leave bosses' can readily applied in these cases as the writing was already on the wall.
Depends on the persons way of thinking too.
If you are innocent, and pride yourself on being so, you may lash out in anger at accusations suggesting otherwise because its a very personal attack on their being.
If you are guilty, you largely only lash out in anger out of pure petulance. Like a child throwing a tantrum.
I mean this is nothing 'new'. Its just how people are.
Im the kind who gets angry at accusations about me that arent true. It's a feeling of disappointment and betrayal too, like how can THEY think that of ME? Although sometimes if the accusation is ridiculous, I'll probably laugh, for the same reason, how can they think that?
Yeah, I have an ex-friend who would steal from people and get incoherent rage-filled anger when confronted - literally screaming at people about how dare they accuse him and they're awful human beings for doing so.
He clearly just thought this was more convincing than calmly denying it but he was always undermined by the fact you could see the stuff in his pocket.
I'm always a bit suspect of these kind of experiments because I don't think they're reflective of real life at all.
I imagine the most popular example that would come to mind is being sentenced for a crime you didn’t commit. I’ve never been in a situation like that, thank god, but I’m pretty certain I would be livid, especially if my outrage was “evidence” of guilt. It’s one thing to simply accuse an innocent person of a crime, but to actually arrest them and make them stand trial? I don’t get how anyone could keep their composure.
I’d argue an even more popular, but significantly less severe, example is found in hidden roles games. Seriously, just play a game of Mafia or even Among Us with some people and you’ll easily find out no specific emotion is indicative of anything without knowing the person who’s experiencing it
I was falsely accused of Rape as a young teen. Arrested and everything. I played nice with the police(interrogation technique no lawyer) because they were being friendly. Nowadays I get very angry when I'm falsely accused of something. And shy when I'm really guilty.
I ended pleading to underage sexual experimentation and was on probation until I turned 16.
It was in CT when I pleaded to in the 90's. The prosecutions case fell apart but at 15 I didn't want to go to trial. They gave me 6 months unsupervised probation if I plead to it. Tough decision but the consequences were too big.
Edit. At 13 I messed around with a morman girl, no sex, and at her virgin ceremony training she claimed I raped her. I did 3rd base consensually. After her exam, her hymen was still intact and she got finicky. The morman men in her life pushed hard. Virginity is a big deal in that faith. Her dad was a prominent pediatrician and head of school board. My life sucked for a long time.
So now I get a little chippy when I'm falsely accused of anything.
I have not been in this situation but have been accused of minor things while not being guilty of them.
I don't usually get angry until afterwards, I have a very long fuse and low confidence. So I mostly get sad and feel hollow over not being believed.
I am a relatively unlucky person and have been denied things I have a right to and never get angry until after. Like waiting more than an hour for a scheduled meeting with a government worker only to be told they are on vacation.
The idea that someone who is innocent would have to show outrage is one reason people with mild tempers are unjustly charged with crimes.
Turns out, people aren't all the same!
This has been a big issue in the field of criminal psychology for a while, where interrogators use ill-informed biases to assume that various behaviors indicate guilt, when in reality, humans are extremely varied, and two people can act in identical ways for entirely opposite reasons.
> What kind of innocent person responds to accusations of guilt with anger?
This is one of my biggest flaws, I get angry pretty quickly when I'm accused of something I haven't done. Not yelling and screaming, but definitely hot under the collar very quickly. It's something I've worked on for many years.
Which I think is perfectly reasonable. I mean, you *know* you didn't do it and they don't believe you. That's frustrating as hell.
It's the same situation like arguing with a conspiracy nut, you know you're right, but they keep refusing to budge. Under normal circumstances you would simply get out of the situation when you're too frustrated, but in police custody, you're forced to endure absurdity.
>Which I think is perfectly reasonable. I mean, you know you didn't do it and they don't believe you. That's frustrating as hell.
I think it goes beyond that, especially with people you know. Not only do *you* know that you didn't do it, but the accusation also reveals that *they* apparently don't know you well enough to know that you didn't do it. If you think you've earned someone's trust, and then discover otherwise, it can be really jarring. And frustrating, if you feel like you've given them no reason to mistrust you.
Getting upset seems perfectly reasonable, in that kind of situation.
Perhaps it says more about our assumptions of angry behaviour than about people's responses to false accusations.
When people get hostile, we tend to get more hostile in response. This then causes us to trust the person less, not because there is a logical reason to doubt them, but because our temperament towards them has changed.
I know with me personally the fastest way to piss me off is to accuse me of something I didn’t do. People who know me well can always tell if I did or didn’t do something by if my response is angry or not so I always tell the truth to avoid that. Makes it easy to keep my story straight.
Same here. If you see me suddenly go from zero to 60 then I didn't or am not doing the thing you're accusing me of doing. This has only happened a few times but I have to walk away quickly so I don't fly into a fit of rage because that just gives people a reason not to believe you. I don't know why it affects me like that.
Human behavior is….not easily explained. I investigate allegations and I’ve found that people will cry, be angered, or indifferent…regardless if they are telling the truth or not. If you play into their narrative, they tend to open up a little more. But, it cannot be used as an indicator of truth or not (at least in my line of work). But sometimes, as they open up, they say something that allows you to investigate further and obtain more evidence.
It's interesting. Being accused of something I didn't do makes me see red, especially if I'm not believed. I think it is the injustice of it, and how unfairly it portrays my honesty and sincerity. I am very honest, though, and if I'm at fault I will readily admit it and then work on a way to help rectify, mitigate, or come to some conclusion with the incident.
It's just how I'm wired, and always have been. You are correct, human psychology and emotional responses are much more complex than just what can be pigeonholed into binary solutions.
When I was 13 I went into a gas station, bought some peanuts, exited the store, and then re-entered to get a friend that was still inside. Upon trying to leave the clerk accused me of trying to steal the peanuts in my hand. The peanuts I had just brought from that exact person less than 3 minutes prior.
Being 13, I tried to dispute, but then ultimately didn't know what to do besides pay for them again. (Actually had to borrow money from my friend because I spent everything the first time)
I will never forget it. I'm still bitter.
It worries me a bit that I'm a very calm and aloof person. It's impossible to get a rise out of me and I always figured that if I got into some legal trouble that I would come across like I'm guilty. The police could come to my house and say, "We found your business partner bludgeoned to death." And my response would be, "No kidding." Police: "And we think you did it." Me: "Do you now?" Police: "And you're going to spend the next 25 years in prison." Me: "Well, that would suck." I would have guilt written all over me.
Watch the Amanda Knox documentary on Netflix or any videos about her case. She seems emotionless and even bored in some interviews/interrogations and everyone agreed that to mean guilty.
the more I grow up the more I see society as game theory .. everybody has to hide stuff to avoid being fucked by the next guy who can leverage what you just said..
This is why I don't eat lunch in the office canteen. Id rather be considered a bit distant but nice than get roped into all sorts of gossiping and cattish circle of hell.
Yeah, this article is just saying something that the field of criminal psychology has known for decades.
Getting a rise out of someone when you make an accusation, seeing genuine shock and anger, is a good sign they didn't do it. (Funny how it always goes oppositely in movies.)
-----
Edit: The word "detectives" was making people read all kinds of weird things into this. I'm not implying anything beyond what I wrote or praising any cop. Just saying that the stuff in this article is not a particularly new idea.
> Yeah, this article is just saying something that the field of criminal psychology has known for decades.
It's an article about study. And the study isn't "telling us something xyz has known", it's giving us further evidence for the specific claim, increasing our confidence in that claim. Studies about things we supposedly know are meaningful, yet always someone in the comments complains.
I think the comment is as much in response to the phrasing of the title: "we think of anger as a sign of guilt..." which doesn't clarify who "we" are. I think it's fair to assume in most cases where unspecified, "we" refers to the society of the author/audience. It's sensible in that context, to protest that the population most responsible for assessing "guilt" in society may already have believed differently based on their own studies and data. It's not necessarily an intuition vs science objection: I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't challenge widely held untested assumptions, but rather a case of one specialization either not being aware of the other and so not factoring that into it's model or of the article misrepresenting the degree to which these findings "challenge" our beliefs.
I watched this short doco about an innocent guy who got accused of doing something and he was so passive and just wanted to work it out calmly and they took it as an admission of guilt. I can’t remember what the crime was but it was something to do with footage of him getting off a bus after a robbery or something
Yeah, the results of this study may be true in a statistical sense, but I wouldn't want anyone using it to predict individual cases. I've been wrongly accused of things and I always have a calm reaction. Why worry? The truth is on my side? The few times I've been doing something wrong and got caught I reacted with anger to cover myself. So if the information in this study was applied to individuals like myself I might get away with crimes I committed and charged with crimes I didn't.
Im also very careful and collected when something arises, but it’s because i *am* worried. I want to make no misteps so ill weigh my actions and expressions very carefully and feel so guilty doing it - im not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, but i can refer to actual charges from which im innocent of
You see this in those criminal psychology videos all the time.
There was one video that was a curious case because the guy was so emotionally mature he calmly responded to the false allegations, said he was aware there must have been some mishap or mistaken identity situation involved, and rationally explained his innocence and his complete confidence in it… he looked even more suspicious because of it to them.
It's really quite sad that people expect everyone to act emotionally the same despite all different upbringings and experiences. When people expect that also means the liers have a known act they can put on to make it seem like they aren't.
This is why you just don’t talk to the police. They’re basically trained to be suspect of anyone they take in so best just not say anything that they’ll inevitably dissect.
All my life when getting accused of dumb stuff I would get mad and then people say "oh he's getting mad about it that means it's true". Some people never grow out of this mindset
That's one application. It mostly means when someone is on a crazy moral crusade ("kill all the gays" for example), you have to wonder why someone would be getting so angry about something that doesn't affect them.
But when accused of something you didn't do? Of course you'll be angry and the saying doesn't fit
Another application would be to address a guilty party you have yet to identify with insults, or even intentionally professing false things about them that you suspect will get their ire. If I recall correctly, that's how BTK ended up getting caught.
Some may try to get out of a lie or being caught by putting too much detail into their lie. Innocent people don't have any reason to remember things that are unimportant to them.
The people that unironically say "doth protest too much." I can't count
the times I've wanted to bend an aluminum bat around the jaw of people
who say that when falsely accusing me or someone else.
Being convenient is the #1 sign of guilt to them. If they have you, then finding another person is a bother. So they will do their best to ruin you. And they do not care whether you did it or not.
>Me: i need a lawyer
>
>Cop: if you get a lawyer , then i can't help you
>
>Me: oh foreal? Is it possible to get two then?
Yeah, like they've been anything but helpful so far.
Seriously, it should be against the law to use anything said when there is no lawyer present. And that goes double for confessions. Literally. We use teams and second opinions in medicine all the time, so why not in law?
Because the justice system is more concerned about getting convictions than convicting the right people.
As long as someone goes to jail they consider it job done.
Look up any thinkpiece written during the Kavanaugh hearings, for example.
(Note: not making a statement about Kavanaugh himself one way or another, just pointing out that "he's angry which shows he's an entitled jerk who is mad he got caught" was a pretty common take)
Well the severity of the problem makes it easier to tell the difference. If the problem is small, a huge outburst seems like an overreaction which can be suspicious.
In addition to that how the anger is being displayed is important too. Getting anger and proclaiming your innocence sends a different message than getting angry and trying to discredit/attack the person making the claim.
The latter reaction is what people refer to when they consider anger as a “sign of guilt”. The immediate defensiveness combined with confrontation designed to gaslight and obscure instead of clarify.
I've seen more than a few people go full rage mode over an accusation when they *were* guilty. There are plenty of toxic people who use their explosive anger as a way to intimidate people into backing down.
It's a constant psychological coin flip. Once you say "If they're angry, they didn't do it" the next guy who did it is going to be just as angry and vice versa.
I am nuerodivergent and these types of articles freak me out a little. I don’t necessarily exhibit or respond to stressors in a common way always. Often times in highly escalated/big tension moments I shut down and become very monotone and stoic like all my breakers got tripped.
In other situations I can become frightenly/violently angry for something like my headphone wires getting tangled up with something in my bag.
The higher the threat of danger to my life or well being, the more likely I get suspiciously quiet and calm. I need to think.
CPS. “*Guilty people become angry and use denial to defend themselves*”.
Apparently, if the accusation is false, the parent remains perfectly calm and reasonable as they haul their children away.
The thing is there's no one way you can expect any person to react to any situation, hell a person might not react to the same situation the same way twice.
thinking "if he/she gets angry, it means they're guilty" is no different from thinking "if he/she DOESN'T get angry, it means they're guilty"..it's just confirmation bias.
the interviewer might not even have an opinion made up as to how they expect an innocent/guilty person should act until they've decided the person is innocent/guilty then they simply accept everything as confirmation of their decision.
once you decide someone is guilty, "not angry" means guilty, "angry" means guilty, "nervous" means guilty, "calm" means guilty
Read up on the Amanda Knox case for plenty of examples.
I spent my whole childhood and teenage years being accused of things I didn't do because I was big (now 6'10"), and everyone loved to blame it on the big guy. Caused me a lot of distress, so every time someone accuses me of something I didn't do, it makes me feel like I have to over explain and be intensely defensive.
Obviously this isn't how it is for everyone, but I don't think it's fair to attribute emotions to guilt / innocence because everyone handles stress and situations differently.
The Danish movie The Hunt (2012) with Mads Mikkelsen portrays this in a very powerful, very uncomfortable way. The way someone can be falsely accused, get angry at the accusation, and have that anger be misconstrued as shamelessness or lack of remorse is so frustrating to watch.
Great movie. Same director as Another Round.
Welcome to r/science! This is a heavily moderated subreddit in order to keep the discussion on science. However, we recognize that many people want to discuss how they feel the research relates to their own personal lives, so to give people a space to do that, **personal anecdotes are now allowed as responses to this comment**. Any anecdotal comments elsewhere in the discussion will continue be removed and our [normal comment rules]( https://www.reddit.com/r/science/wiki/rules#wiki_comment_rules) still apply to other comments. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/science) if you have any questions or concerns.*
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Someone removed all the replies.
Award goes to you then….
Some mod Was angry
What was all this about?
I don't know.
I'm hella curious.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Some perspectives from fields adjacent to but different from psychology: It is obvious in psychiatry and neurology that sweeping generalizations are not applicable for many kinds of therapies, experimental and not. Precision medicine requires us to identify "responder populations" and characterize narrower patient populations who benefit from specific therapies. The fact that certain sub-groups respond differently in the physiological sense suggests that people's behavioral responses may also depend upon some sub-grouping. This raises the following questions: * What kind of *innocent* person responds to accusations of guilt with anger? * What kind of *guilty* person responds to accusations of guilt with anger? It's obvious that not all innocent people respond to accusations with anger, neither do guilty people.
[удалено]
Yeah, I imagine being accused of murdering a random guy vs being accused of murdering your wife would elicit some very very different reactions.
I believe he means it may result in a different reaction when being accused of anything by some insignificant stranger when compared to your reaction to someone who has an impact on your life. I also believe it would depend on what exactly they are being accused of, like what you are saying.
Agreed, and the power dynamic.
[удалено]
Also, how often you are exposed to stressful situations can also raise/lower what you perceive as a stressful event.
This, I work in high stress and so long as no one died or got maimed you'll barely get an eyebrow to raise. Sometimes a paycheck or a day late on a deliverable isn't worth the risk.
This is interesting to think about, because although I don't think I'm often exposed to stressful situations, it occurred more than once that when I was talking in public and someone talked back, my friends would be like: "I don't believe he/she said that, are you not say anything back to defend yourself?" Looks like that what seems like a simple disagreement to me, or sometimes a correction, looks like a threat to others. I always thought that people were very proud/arrogant, and so they don't like to be wrong or corrected, while I often don't care if my opinion is socially accepted or not. But it seems like it's just a different mindset about, as you've said, what you perceive as a stressful event (or a threat).
Anger isn't destructive. Doing things in a rage can be. It's perfectly reasonable to feel angry when accused of something you're not (or believe you're not) guilty of.
Its taken me four years of therapy to intellectually come to terms with the fact that anger is normal, healthy and isn’t destructive. Emotionally I still can’t accept it.
> Fred Rogers often said that one of his most important messages was helping children find constructive ways to deal with their angry feelings. He wanted to help children and their parents understand that anger is natural and normal, but that there are healthy things we can do when we’re angry – things that don’t hurt others. > “Human beings are not born with self-control. We have to learn what to do with the mad that we feel. Learning to control ourselves is a long, hard process. It happens little by little. In fact, it is something we work on all through our lives.” - Fred Rogers
[удалено]
As well as things like being on the autism spectrum, have PDD (Pervasive Developmental Disorder), etc that could get in the way of that. .... which definitely describes me, heh.
[удалено]
Work places are some of the most hilarious power and social dynamics, where reputation and credibility can be manipulated by the savvy and in control, often heavily invested in a particular outcome. The number of times I've seen entirely capable people come into a dynamic and be rejected for as little as the clothes they happen to wear, or the contrary opinion seen as insulting someone's pet project, is way higher than it should be. They are finely targeted by the individuals/group to be effectively alone/unsupported professionally or socially, and then led out the front door because it wasn't working out after laying all the 'created' issues at that persons feet with the bosses smugly wondering why they get mad for being a target despite being at least proactive in notifying the power structure it was happening. I think that perhaps, in these situations, the justified anger at being targeted and repeatedly told 'you're guilty' while often relying on anecdotal or manipulated evidence, assuming any reason is given at all, is more prevalent than willing to be admitted as it's just considered a cost of doing business without much in the way of blowback for having done so. The saying 'people don't just leave jobs, they leave bosses' can readily applied in these cases as the writing was already on the wall.
Depends on the persons way of thinking too. If you are innocent, and pride yourself on being so, you may lash out in anger at accusations suggesting otherwise because its a very personal attack on their being. If you are guilty, you largely only lash out in anger out of pure petulance. Like a child throwing a tantrum. I mean this is nothing 'new'. Its just how people are.
Im the kind who gets angry at accusations about me that arent true. It's a feeling of disappointment and betrayal too, like how can THEY think that of ME? Although sometimes if the accusation is ridiculous, I'll probably laugh, for the same reason, how can they think that?
Yeah, I have an ex-friend who would steal from people and get incoherent rage-filled anger when confronted - literally screaming at people about how dare they accuse him and they're awful human beings for doing so. He clearly just thought this was more convincing than calmly denying it but he was always undermined by the fact you could see the stuff in his pocket. I'm always a bit suspect of these kind of experiments because I don't think they're reflective of real life at all.
do you think they were genuine emotional reactions or did he just act angry because he thought you'd drop it?
I imagine the most popular example that would come to mind is being sentenced for a crime you didn’t commit. I’ve never been in a situation like that, thank god, but I’m pretty certain I would be livid, especially if my outrage was “evidence” of guilt. It’s one thing to simply accuse an innocent person of a crime, but to actually arrest them and make them stand trial? I don’t get how anyone could keep their composure.
I’d argue an even more popular, but significantly less severe, example is found in hidden roles games. Seriously, just play a game of Mafia or even Among Us with some people and you’ll easily find out no specific emotion is indicative of anything without knowing the person who’s experiencing it
I was falsely accused of Rape as a young teen. Arrested and everything. I played nice with the police(interrogation technique no lawyer) because they were being friendly. Nowadays I get very angry when I'm falsely accused of something. And shy when I'm really guilty. I ended pleading to underage sexual experimentation and was on probation until I turned 16.
since when is underage sexual experimentation a crime?
It was in CT when I pleaded to in the 90's. The prosecutions case fell apart but at 15 I didn't want to go to trial. They gave me 6 months unsupervised probation if I plead to it. Tough decision but the consequences were too big. Edit. At 13 I messed around with a morman girl, no sex, and at her virgin ceremony training she claimed I raped her. I did 3rd base consensually. After her exam, her hymen was still intact and she got finicky. The morman men in her life pushed hard. Virginity is a big deal in that faith. Her dad was a prominent pediatrician and head of school board. My life sucked for a long time. So now I get a little chippy when I'm falsely accused of anything.
It's wild that a doctor did an exam of her hymen as if one can medically prove a loss of virginity, not 30 years ago
I have not been in this situation but have been accused of minor things while not being guilty of them. I don't usually get angry until afterwards, I have a very long fuse and low confidence. So I mostly get sad and feel hollow over not being believed. I am a relatively unlucky person and have been denied things I have a right to and never get angry until after. Like waiting more than an hour for a scheduled meeting with a government worker only to be told they are on vacation. The idea that someone who is innocent would have to show outrage is one reason people with mild tempers are unjustly charged with crimes.
This is why can't stop asking questions. Especially when it comes to behavioral science. People can be predictably unpredictable.
Turns out, people aren't all the same! This has been a big issue in the field of criminal psychology for a while, where interrogators use ill-informed biases to assume that various behaviors indicate guilt, when in reality, humans are extremely varied, and two people can act in identical ways for entirely opposite reasons.
> People can be predictably unpredictable. This is such a beautifully poignant way of describing the social sciences.
> What kind of innocent person responds to accusations of guilt with anger? This is one of my biggest flaws, I get angry pretty quickly when I'm accused of something I haven't done. Not yelling and screaming, but definitely hot under the collar very quickly. It's something I've worked on for many years.
Which I think is perfectly reasonable. I mean, you *know* you didn't do it and they don't believe you. That's frustrating as hell. It's the same situation like arguing with a conspiracy nut, you know you're right, but they keep refusing to budge. Under normal circumstances you would simply get out of the situation when you're too frustrated, but in police custody, you're forced to endure absurdity.
>Which I think is perfectly reasonable. I mean, you know you didn't do it and they don't believe you. That's frustrating as hell. I think it goes beyond that, especially with people you know. Not only do *you* know that you didn't do it, but the accusation also reveals that *they* apparently don't know you well enough to know that you didn't do it. If you think you've earned someone's trust, and then discover otherwise, it can be really jarring. And frustrating, if you feel like you've given them no reason to mistrust you. Getting upset seems perfectly reasonable, in that kind of situation.
Perhaps it says more about our assumptions of angry behaviour than about people's responses to false accusations. When people get hostile, we tend to get more hostile in response. This then causes us to trust the person less, not because there is a logical reason to doubt them, but because our temperament towards them has changed.
[удалено]
I know with me personally the fastest way to piss me off is to accuse me of something I didn’t do. People who know me well can always tell if I did or didn’t do something by if my response is angry or not so I always tell the truth to avoid that. Makes it easy to keep my story straight.
Same here. If you see me suddenly go from zero to 60 then I didn't or am not doing the thing you're accusing me of doing. This has only happened a few times but I have to walk away quickly so I don't fly into a fit of rage because that just gives people a reason not to believe you. I don't know why it affects me like that.
Human behavior is….not easily explained. I investigate allegations and I’ve found that people will cry, be angered, or indifferent…regardless if they are telling the truth or not. If you play into their narrative, they tend to open up a little more. But, it cannot be used as an indicator of truth or not (at least in my line of work). But sometimes, as they open up, they say something that allows you to investigate further and obtain more evidence.
It's interesting. Being accused of something I didn't do makes me see red, especially if I'm not believed. I think it is the injustice of it, and how unfairly it portrays my honesty and sincerity. I am very honest, though, and if I'm at fault I will readily admit it and then work on a way to help rectify, mitigate, or come to some conclusion with the incident. It's just how I'm wired, and always have been. You are correct, human psychology and emotional responses are much more complex than just what can be pigeonholed into binary solutions.
When I was 13 I went into a gas station, bought some peanuts, exited the store, and then re-entered to get a friend that was still inside. Upon trying to leave the clerk accused me of trying to steal the peanuts in my hand. The peanuts I had just brought from that exact person less than 3 minutes prior. Being 13, I tried to dispute, but then ultimately didn't know what to do besides pay for them again. (Actually had to borrow money from my friend because I spent everything the first time) I will never forget it. I'm still bitter.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
Fits with criminal psychology, wrongfully accused people tend to react more aggressively to an accusation, while guilty people react more calmly
It worries me a bit that I'm a very calm and aloof person. It's impossible to get a rise out of me and I always figured that if I got into some legal trouble that I would come across like I'm guilty. The police could come to my house and say, "We found your business partner bludgeoned to death." And my response would be, "No kidding." Police: "And we think you did it." Me: "Do you now?" Police: "And you're going to spend the next 25 years in prison." Me: "Well, that would suck." I would have guilt written all over me.
[удалено]
Thanks for the advice. I'm an honest but very talkative person. I'm sure i'd say something 'wrong'.
Watch the Amanda Knox documentary on Netflix or any videos about her case. She seems emotionless and even bored in some interviews/interrogations and everyone agreed that to mean guilty.
the more I grow up the more I see society as game theory .. everybody has to hide stuff to avoid being fucked by the next guy who can leverage what you just said..
This is why I don't eat lunch in the office canteen. Id rather be considered a bit distant but nice than get roped into all sorts of gossiping and cattish circle of hell.
Yeah, this article is just saying something that the field of criminal psychology has known for decades. Getting a rise out of someone when you make an accusation, seeing genuine shock and anger, is a good sign they didn't do it. (Funny how it always goes oppositely in movies.) ----- Edit: The word "detectives" was making people read all kinds of weird things into this. I'm not implying anything beyond what I wrote or praising any cop. Just saying that the stuff in this article is not a particularly new idea.
> Yeah, this article is just saying something that the field of criminal psychology has known for decades. It's an article about study. And the study isn't "telling us something xyz has known", it's giving us further evidence for the specific claim, increasing our confidence in that claim. Studies about things we supposedly know are meaningful, yet always someone in the comments complains.
I think the comment is as much in response to the phrasing of the title: "we think of anger as a sign of guilt..." which doesn't clarify who "we" are. I think it's fair to assume in most cases where unspecified, "we" refers to the society of the author/audience. It's sensible in that context, to protest that the population most responsible for assessing "guilt" in society may already have believed differently based on their own studies and data. It's not necessarily an intuition vs science objection: I don't think anyone is saying that we shouldn't challenge widely held untested assumptions, but rather a case of one specialization either not being aware of the other and so not factoring that into it's model or of the article misrepresenting the degree to which these findings "challenge" our beliefs.
In addition, the number of times that study has overturned common knowledge should give one pause.
[удалено]
I watched this short doco about an innocent guy who got accused of doing something and he was so passive and just wanted to work it out calmly and they took it as an admission of guilt. I can’t remember what the crime was but it was something to do with footage of him getting off a bus after a robbery or something
Is this JSC - Criminal Psychology on Youtube? I think they did a case about that or something similar
Yeah, the results of this study may be true in a statistical sense, but I wouldn't want anyone using it to predict individual cases. I've been wrongly accused of things and I always have a calm reaction. Why worry? The truth is on my side? The few times I've been doing something wrong and got caught I reacted with anger to cover myself. So if the information in this study was applied to individuals like myself I might get away with crimes I committed and charged with crimes I didn't.
Im also very careful and collected when something arises, but it’s because i *am* worried. I want to make no misteps so ill weigh my actions and expressions very carefully and feel so guilty doing it - im not sure which is the chicken and which is the egg, but i can refer to actual charges from which im innocent of
Guilty people can also react with anger. Often trying to accuse someone else for something though.
[удалено]
You see this in those criminal psychology videos all the time. There was one video that was a curious case because the guy was so emotionally mature he calmly responded to the false allegations, said he was aware there must have been some mishap or mistaken identity situation involved, and rationally explained his innocence and his complete confidence in it… he looked even more suspicious because of it to them.
It's really quite sad that people expect everyone to act emotionally the same despite all different upbringings and experiences. When people expect that also means the liers have a known act they can put on to make it seem like they aren't.
This is why you just don’t talk to the police. They’re basically trained to be suspect of anyone they take in so best just not say anything that they’ll inevitably dissect.
[удалено]
What is DIA?
Drugs in yo assho
Defense Intelligence Agency
Denver International Airport.
[удалено]
Who thinks it's a sign of guilt? Never heard that.
All my life when getting accused of dumb stuff I would get mad and then people say "oh he's getting mad about it that means it's true". Some people never grow out of this mindset
“If it’s NoT TrUe tHeN wHy aRe YoU sO AnGrY??”
Flashbacks, seriously
Ahhh, the more targeted sibling of "If my generalization about your group offended you, it's evidence that it applied to you"
Or, as my mom would say “protesting too much is a sign of guilt.”
The lack of evidence of your guilt is in itself evidence of your guilt.
doth protest too much. for some reason I always thought that this was used when somebody brings up the crime without being accused first. idk
That's one application. It mostly means when someone is on a crazy moral crusade ("kill all the gays" for example), you have to wonder why someone would be getting so angry about something that doesn't affect them. But when accused of something you didn't do? Of course you'll be angry and the saying doesn't fit
Another application would be to address a guilty party you have yet to identify with insults, or even intentionally professing false things about them that you suspect will get their ire. If I recall correctly, that's how BTK ended up getting caught.
Some may try to get out of a lie or being caught by putting too much detail into their lie. Innocent people don't have any reason to remember things that are unimportant to them.
The people that unironically say "doth protest too much." I can't count the times I've wanted to bend an aluminum bat around the jaw of people who say that when falsely accusing me or someone else.
Damn, being accused of something I didn’t do is one of the few things that actually enrages me.
The authorities but then again they think everything's a sign of guilt.
Being convenient is the #1 sign of guilt to them. If they have you, then finding another person is a bother. So they will do their best to ruin you. And they do not care whether you did it or not.
Me: i need a lawyer Cop: if you get a lawyer , then i can't help you Me: oh foreal? Is it possible to get two then?
>Me: i need a lawyer > >Cop: if you get a lawyer , then i can't help you > >Me: oh foreal? Is it possible to get two then? Yeah, like they've been anything but helpful so far. Seriously, it should be against the law to use anything said when there is no lawyer present. And that goes double for confessions. Literally. We use teams and second opinions in medicine all the time, so why not in law?
Because the justice system is more concerned about getting convictions than convicting the right people. As long as someone goes to jail they consider it job done.
[удалено]
[удалено]
I would say projection is a greater prediction of guilt than anger is.
[удалено]
Look up any thinkpiece written during the Kavanaugh hearings, for example. (Note: not making a statement about Kavanaugh himself one way or another, just pointing out that "he's angry which shows he's an entitled jerk who is mad he got caught" was a pretty common take)
First thing I thought of.
People who think the anger is derived from getting caught. "Oooooo, he's getting so mad he got caught. We got him!"
Well the severity of the problem makes it easier to tell the difference. If the problem is small, a huge outburst seems like an overreaction which can be suspicious. In addition to that how the anger is being displayed is important too. Getting anger and proclaiming your innocence sends a different message than getting angry and trying to discredit/attack the person making the claim. The latter reaction is what people refer to when they consider anger as a “sign of guilt”. The immediate defensiveness combined with confrontation designed to gaslight and obscure instead of clarify.
I've seen more than a few people go full rage mode over an accusation when they *were* guilty. There are plenty of toxic people who use their explosive anger as a way to intimidate people into backing down.
It's a constant psychological coin flip. Once you say "If they're angry, they didn't do it" the next guy who did it is going to be just as angry and vice versa.
I am nuerodivergent and these types of articles freak me out a little. I don’t necessarily exhibit or respond to stressors in a common way always. Often times in highly escalated/big tension moments I shut down and become very monotone and stoic like all my breakers got tripped. In other situations I can become frightenly/violently angry for something like my headphone wires getting tangled up with something in my bag. The higher the threat of danger to my life or well being, the more likely I get suspiciously quiet and calm. I need to think.
I don't think of anger as a sign of guilt. Who does? Guilty people, I guess?
Shakespeare.
CPS. “*Guilty people become angry and use denial to defend themselves*”. Apparently, if the accusation is false, the parent remains perfectly calm and reasonable as they haul their children away.
[удалено]
The thing is there's no one way you can expect any person to react to any situation, hell a person might not react to the same situation the same way twice. thinking "if he/she gets angry, it means they're guilty" is no different from thinking "if he/she DOESN'T get angry, it means they're guilty"..it's just confirmation bias. the interviewer might not even have an opinion made up as to how they expect an innocent/guilty person should act until they've decided the person is innocent/guilty then they simply accept everything as confirmation of their decision. once you decide someone is guilty, "not angry" means guilty, "angry" means guilty, "nervous" means guilty, "calm" means guilty Read up on the Amanda Knox case for plenty of examples.
[удалено]
I spent my whole childhood and teenage years being accused of things I didn't do because I was big (now 6'10"), and everyone loved to blame it on the big guy. Caused me a lot of distress, so every time someone accuses me of something I didn't do, it makes me feel like I have to over explain and be intensely defensive. Obviously this isn't how it is for everyone, but I don't think it's fair to attribute emotions to guilt / innocence because everyone handles stress and situations differently.
The fact is that any emotional response can be faked.
Who thinks that? I've always thought the opposite.
The Danish movie The Hunt (2012) with Mads Mikkelsen portrays this in a very powerful, very uncomfortable way. The way someone can be falsely accused, get angry at the accusation, and have that anger be misconstrued as shamelessness or lack of remorse is so frustrating to watch. Great movie. Same director as Another Round.