Acceso usuarios
Jessica M. Salerno, Samantha R. Bean, Nicholas Duran, Alia N. Wulff, Isabelle Reeder, Saul M. Kassin
Coming to suspect that someone has engaged in wrongdoing based on their unexpected behavior is a common phenomenon—yet, little is known about what triggers initial suspicion. We investigated how violating expectations for high emotionality during a traumatic event can trigger suspicion that one has engaged in immoral—or even criminal—activity through moral typecasting. Five studies demonstrate this theory in a criminal context with dire real-world consequences: 911 callers reporting violent crimes generating suspicion by exhibiting unexpected behavior, which could trigger confirmation bias in investigations leading to wrongful convictions. Using both real and tightly controlled simulated 911 calls, we demonstrated that failing to express the expected level of emotion on a 911 call reporting a violent crime led laypeople and police to morally typecast the caller as more of a moral agent capable of perpetrating immoral acts and less of a moral patient capable of being the victim of immoral acts—ultimately increasing suspicion that they were involved in the crime and support for treating them as a suspect. We advance moral psychological theory by demonstrating that failing to express expected levels of emotion about a moral violation can shape moral inferences about someone’s capacity to commit versus be the victim of moral wrongs, thereby generating suspicion that they might have engaged in wrongdoing. We demonstrated this theory in criminal settings to explain how one tragedy can become two: altruistic witnesses calling 911 to plead for help on behalf of another person becoming suspects of the crime they reported because they failed to exhibit the expected emotional demeanor. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2025 APA, all rights reserved)
