The Public Doesn’t Judge Your Crisis Response the Way You Think
Why "anyone would react this way" is irrelevant
I get asked, “Why crisis management?” quite often when discussing my career focus because I didn’t exactly take a linear path to this profession (who does? I trained as a scientific researcher first; some of those skills still come in handy). Thankfully, the answer is simple: I came for the knowledge in case I needed it to protect my own business, and I stayed for the communications frameworks and psychology of it all. Those got me hooked. Especially the psychology aspect.
Because it’s not enough to know why a communication approach will (or won’t) have the desired effect on public perception. Some clients will take “this is what will get you your desired outcome, and this is why,” and go with it; others will get ‘stuck’ on messaging that they think will help them come across better, but will be disastrous for public perception. In those cases, we need to get more into the psychology of why we react the way we do and why others perceive our reaction in ways that seem… unexpected. There are many factors that go into this. This article addresses just one: the assumption that we know how others will respond because we know how we feel.
“Anyone would react this way, so of course it’ll come across as genuine!” and variations on this sentiment are something I hear a lot when helping clients respond to a crisis. This happens because of the false consensus effect (this research on this is from 1977, but it remains unfortunately relevant), which is where we overestimate how much other people share our beliefs and attitudes, assuming that because we feel a certain way, most other people would feel the same, projecting our internal reality onto them.
When we’re falsely accused, for example, our internal monologue says, “This is outrageous! I am furious. Anyone would be furious! If I show them how furious I am, they will agree with me! They will see the injustice just as clearly as I do!”
We believe our outrage will be contagious, and the audience will ‘catch’ our anger at our accusers and side with us instead. But the audience doesn’t share your emotional state and is judging against an impossible standard of perception (stay with me… more on these below), so that assumption that they’ll ‘get it’ instead of seeing a person who’s losing control?
That’s a trap.
Your brain is trapping you by assuming a false consensus. The mistake here is thinking that because it feels natural for us to react a certain way, others will recognize it as a reaction they would have if they were in that situation, and take it as an indicator of truth.
They don’t.
Here’s why.
“Anger Damns the Innocent”
It is a natural human instinct to defend ourselves and show anger and explain our side with raw emotion when we feel attacked or misunderstood or are being falsely accused. We think that because these tendencies are genuine, they’ll be relatable and that our audience will see that authentic outrage and think, “Well, they can’t have done it, or they wouldn’t be so offended at the suggestion.”
The opposite happens. The more defensive and emotional you get, the guiltier you look.
This is one of the hardest concepts I have to explain to clients. They want to believe that the public will judge them according to how a normal human being would actually react in a crisis… but they don’t, because they’re not actually judging you against how they would act. They’re judging you against how they’d like to think they would act, holding you to the standards of their idealized ‘best selves’. And your defensive, emotional response doesn’t meet those standards.
There’s a lot of projection involved in audience perception. Anger triggers a lot of projection. And it’s one of the most common reactions to a crisis. For example, in a false accusation situation, if someone is accused of something awful that they didn’t do, they’re going to be angry about the perceived injustice and prone to issuing furious denials and going on long rants about how could they do this to me and all kinds of forceful language intended to come across as proof of innocence, all while the audience perceives it as proof of guilt.
DeCelles et al. (2021) wrote about this in their 2021 paper Anger Damns the Innocent, finding that although observers perceive increased anger as a sign of guilt (at least to a similar extent as they perceive silence as a guilt indicator), people who are innocent express more anger than those who are not. Anger is interpreted as untrustworthiness and inauthenticity, with the assumption that an innocent person would have nothing to hide and, thus, has no reason to be so defensive. But if you ask a person to think about a time they’ve been falsely accused… they’re going to express more anger than those who were rightfully accused.
The emotion that’s a genuine indicator of innocence is the exact one that makes the public think you’re guilty.
It’s an annoying paradox. One of those ‘things that shouldn’t be’ that can get us trapped in ‘but it shouldn’t be this way’ thinking instead of working with how things are. (Ask me how many times I’ve been in a “But it SHOULD!”/”But it WON’T” loop with a client before explaining the why of all of this…)
If we’re working with perception, which is not reality, we also have to work with the reality of perception.
(Sorry about that sentence. I promise I’m not actually trying to break your brain.)
So, why does the audience get it ‘wrong’?
The Comfort of Moral Superiority
Why does an audience take a perfectly natural human reaction like anger at an unjust accusation and condemn it? A large part of this comes down to how we view our own morality compared with that of others.
Almost all of us experience a cognitive bias known as the Better-Than-Average effect, where if you ask a group of people to rate themselves against an average, more will rate themselves as above average, which is statistically impossible (unless the average is wrong!). It’s not a bad thing; having a heightened view of ourselves can be good for self-esteem and confidence (as long as we don’t take it too far), but when it comes to issues of morality, it can throw our judgment off in a less beneficial way.
As stated by Tappin et al. (2017), “Most people strongly believe they are just, virtuous, and moral; yet regard the average person as distinctly less so.” They found that “virtually all individuals irrationally inflated their moral qualities,” and that this belief in our own moral superiority is “a uniquely strong and prevalent form of positive illusion.”
Because you’re dealing with an audience full of people who consider themselves paragons of virtue, you’re addressing people who think that, if they were falsely accused, they’d handle it with grace and rational calm. We look at other people handling shit and imagine our ‘best selves’ facing that same shit and issuing a devastatingly articulate rebuttal that instantly clears our name, all without breaking a sweat, because we’re better.
It’s comfortable to believe that we’re better. Moral superiority feels safe because if we convince ourselves ‘we would never <insert reaction here>’, we artificially insulate ourselves from the negativity we see others subjected to (and this is somewhat of a vicious cycle because we see others responding negatively to anger and that reinforces our own idea that anger = guilt and that reinforces our conviction that we wouldn’t respond with anger because people respond negatively… it goes on).
Anyway, the point is that when the audience watches you react defensively or emotionally, they aren’t comparing your reaction with how they’d actually react (which is probably just as defensively, with just as much panic and anger) but with how their imaginary, morally superior self would react. And because you’re not acting like that, they view you negatively.
I’d never argue like that. I’d calmly present the facts. So… this person’s anger is suspicious.
But why does this happen?
What happened to empathy?
George Loewenstein’s 2005 research on the hot-cold empathy gaps gives us some insight into why our audiences often seem to be missing the empathy to override moral superiority. This is where we have an inability to understand how emotional states affect our behavior when we’re not currently in that emotional state.
So, when you’re in a crisis, you’re in a ‘hot’ state and reacting from that emotional experience, but the audience is in a ‘cold’ state sitting on their couch scrolling and coming across your video. They’re observers of your response to a threat, but they don’t see the threat like you do or as though they were experiencing it themselves.
This makes it hard for them to empathize with your ‘hot’ state, so they underestimate how much the stress and anger of the situation are driving your behavior. Then, they overestimate how much rational control you should have. So, they look at your panicked, defensive response and think, “Why can’t they just be reasonable?”
You can think “Anyone in my situation would react this way” and be right, if they were in your ‘hot’ state, they probably would… but they aren’t. They’re ‘cold’. From that cold perspective, your hot reaction looks unhinged. They can’t easily bridge this empathy gap to understand the why of your reaction and attribute your reaction to character flaw or guilt.
Another factor in this is the fundamental attribution error, where we overemphasize personality-based explanations for others’ behaviors while underemphasizing situational explanations, i.e., when we do something wrong, we blame the situation (I kicked the vending machine because I was under a lot of stress), but when someone else does something wrong, we blame their character (They kicked the vending machine because they’re a horrible angry person).
When you’re in a crisis, you’re acutely aware of the situational factors that are driving your behavior… the sleep deprivation, fear for your reputation, all of that ‘fun’ stuff. You know your defensive reaction is a product of these stressors, but your audience falls into the fundamental attribution error and attributes your defensive, angry, or overly emotional reaction directly to your core character. They don’t think, “Wow, that person is under a lot of stress!”
They think, “Wow, that person is unhinged and probably guilty.”
These factors, collectively, are why “anyone would react this way” is irrelevant.
So what can we do, now that we know this?
Avoiding ‘over-emoting’ and performative sincerity
The first thing is what not to do, which is take it too far in the other direction and get into performative vulnerability (like those ‘crying apology’ videos I’m sure you’ve all seen); replacing anger and defensiveness with distress to try to get the audience to feel sorry for you isn’t going to fill that hot-cold empathy gap we discussed above.
Your most valuable assets are credibility and sincerity. Over-emoting and performing emotion feels forced and exaggerated, which is typically immediately perceived as inauthentic by your audience (because it is), especially when it seems disproportionate.
Stephens et al. (2019) examined how nuanced displays of emotion affect credibility during a crisis, finding that spokespeople who over-emote damage perceptions of sincerity. The audience stops listening to the words being said and starts analyzing the performance, so they’re critiquing your delivery rather than receiving your message.
When evaluating a public statement, we have to consider whether a ‘bad’ statement indicates a lack of effective communication skills or reveals the true character of the individual. The audience is doing the exact same thing. If your emotional display feels like a tactic rather than a genuine reaction, the audience will assume it is a manipulation. A performative apology, especially from someone with a history of negative behavior, confirms a lack of genuine concern rather than merely poor statement writing. It signals that you are more concerned with managing your image than addressing the issue.
Audiences are highly attuned to authenticity. They may not be able to articulate why a statement feels off, but they know when they are being managed.
A rational approach
Anger makes you look guilty, your audience is judging you against an impossible standard, people can’t easily empathize with your stress, they blame your character instead of your situation, if you over-emote you look manipulative... so what exactly are you supposed to do?
It’s not as impossible as it sounds. Here are some of the steps I work through with my clients to get us to a rational approach that will have the desired effect.
1. Accept the information asymmetry
The first step is to accept that the audience does not have the same information, context, or emotional investment you do. You can’t force them to see the situation through your eyes or make them feel your outrage. So stop trying to convince them that your emotional reaction is justified. They are in a ‘cold’ state; they will never fully grasp your ‘hot’ state. Instead of trying to bridge the empathy gap with raw emotion, bridge it with clarity and restraint. Provide the facts without the emotional framing. Let the facts speak for themselves, because your emotions will only drown them out.
2. Don’t perform for the ‘idealized self’
Recognize that the audience is judging you against their imaginary best selves and that you can’t win a shouting match against moral superiority. If you react defensively, you validate their belief that you are flawed and they are superior. If you react with calm, measured restraint, you disrupt their narrative. You force them to evaluate the facts rather than your emotional performance, meeting their idealized standard BY refusing to give them the messy, emotional reaction they expect from a guilty party.
As I have written before, when you are accused of something you didn’t do, your goal is not to win an argument but to contain the narrative. You need one core, consistent message: I understand that my actions were interpreted this way, and I regret this misunderstanding. That was never my intent, and I am committed to ensuring clear communication moving forward.
Then, silence. Do not feed the beast.
3. Separate the emotion from the strategy
Your emotions are valid. Your anger at being falsely accused is real and justified. The pain of being misunderstood is profound. But your emotions are not a crisis strategy.
You need to separate how you feel from how you communicate. Vent your anger to your crisis advisor, your lawyer, or your spouse. Scream into a pillow. Write a furious ten-page email and then delete it. But when you face the public, you must operate from a place of strategic restraint.
Remember the “anger damns the innocent” paradox. The very emotion that proves your innocence to yourself is the emotion that will convince the audience of your guilt. Do not give them the ammunition to misjudge you. Treat your public communication as a strategic operation, not an emotional release valve.
4. Focus on the “What’s Next”
When we are misjudged, we get stuck in the past. We obsess over correcting the record and imagine counterfactual timelines where the crisis never happened. We think, If I can just explain it one more time, they’ll finally understand.
This keeps you trapped in a defensive posture. You cannot control the other side’s narrative, just your participation in it. If you are not participating in a defensive, emotional back-and-forth, that conversation will eventually end. The internet’s attention span is notoriously short, but it will feast on defensive reactions for as long as you provide them.
Shift your focus from defending the past to defining the future. What actions are you taking? How are you moving forward? The audience may judge your initial reaction harshly, but they will also judge your subsequent actions. Make sure those actions communicate stability, integrity, and resilience. Show them who you are through your behavior, rather than trying to tell them who you are through defensive statements.
5. Understand the “Crowd-Emotion-Amplification-Effect”
Finally, remember that the outrage you see online is often an illusion. As I discussed in a previous article, social media distorts our perception of how angry people really are. The “crowd-emotion-amplification-effect” causes us to overperceive the extremity of a group’s emotion. We see a few angry comments and assume the entire world is furious with us.
Don’t let the algorithmic amplification of outrage dictate your response. The loudest voices are rarely the most representative. Most people engaging with the crisis do not care that much. If you react to the amplified outrage, you validate it.
Your thought that anyone would react this way is normal. But your audience is not looking at you with empathy. Many want to see the idealized version of themselves reflected back at them and will recoil when given raw humanity.
The biggest trap you can fall into is choosing to respond in a way that reflects how things should be instead of how they are.
Sources
Andrews P. W. (2001). The psychology of social chess and the evolution of attribution mechanisms: explaining the fundamental attribution error. Evolution and human behavior : official journal of the Human Behavior and Evolution Society, 22(1), 11–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1090-5138(00)00059-3
Alicke, M. D., & Govorun, O. (2005). The Better-Than-Average Effect. In M. D. Alicke, D. A. Dunning, & J. I. Krueger (Eds.), The Self in Social Judgment (pp. 85–106). Psychology Press.
DeCelles, K. A., Adams, G. S., Howe, H. S., & John, L. K. (2021). Anger damns the innocent. Psychological Science, 32(8), 1214–1226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797621994770
Loewenstein G. (2005). Hot-cold empathy gaps and medical decision making. Health Psychol. 24(4S), S49–56. https://doi.org/10.1037/0278-6133.24.4.S49
Ross, L., Greene, D., & House, P. (1977). The false consensus effect: An egocentric bias in social perception and attribution processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(3), 279–301. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(77)90049-X
Stephens, K.K., Waller, M.J., Sohrab, S.G. (2019). Over-emoting and perceptions of sincerity: Effects of nuanced displays of emotions and chosen words on credibility perceptions during a crisis. Public Relations Review, 45(5), 101841. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pubrev.2019.101841
Tappin, B. M., & McKay, R. T. (2017). The illusion of moral superiority. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 8(6), 623–631. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550616673878