When “good guys” do bad things: Evaluations of sexual harassment allegations against male allies

Abstract

Across two studies (Ns = 268 and 574), we examined the perceived legitimacy of sexual harassment allegations made against male allies. Overall, observers were less inclined to believe an allegation (Studies 1 and 2) and endorsed less severe punishments against a perpetrator who engaged in egalitarian (vs. sexist) behaviors toward women (Studies 1 and 2). Observers also endorsed weaker reparatory measures, were more willing to move past the allegation, and were more inclined to blame the victim for the incident when an egalitarian (vs. sexist) man was accused, especially when there was greater uncertainty surrounding his guilt (Study 2). Importantly, these effects were mediated by perpetrator typicality: the egalitarian perpetrator less closely resembled a typical perpetrator of sexual harassment, which, in turn, predicted more lenient evaluations (Study 2). These findings highlight how accusations of male allies’ problematic behavior can reinforce widespread scepticism surrounding sexual harassment allegations and discriminatory attitudes towards victims.

Keywords

allyship gender equality moral hypocrisy perpetrator typicality sexual harassment

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Aberson

C. L.

Bostyn

D. H.

Carpenter

Conrique

B. G.

Giner-Sorolla

Lewis

N. A.

Jr Montoya

A.M.

Brandon

W.N.

Reifman

Schoemann

A.M.

Soderberg

(2020). Techniques and solutions for sample size determination in psychology: Supplementary material for “power to detect what? Considerations for planning and evaluating sample size.”

Abrams

Rutland

Ferrell

J. M.

Pelletier

(2008). Children’s judgments of disloyal and immoral peer behavior: Subjective group dynamics in minimal intergroup contexts. Child Development, 79, 444–461. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-8624.2007.01135.x

Amodio

D. M.

Devine

P. G.

Harmon-Jones

(2007). A dynamic model of guilt: Implications for motivation and self-regulation in the context of prejudice. Psychological Science, 18, 524–530. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01933.x

Bhattacharya

Stockdale

M. S.

(2016). Perceptions of sexual harassment by evidence quality, perceiver gender, feminism, and right wing authoritarianism: Debunking popular myths. Law and Human Behavior, 40, 594–609. https://doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000195

Buhrmester

Kwang

Gosling

S. D.

(2011). Amazon’s Mechanical Turk: A new source of inexpensive, yet high-quality, data? Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 3–5. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610393980

Castano

Paladino

M. P.

Coull

Yzerbyt

V. Y.

(2002). Protecting the ingroup stereotype: Ingroup identification and the management of deviant ingroup members. British Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 365–385. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466602760344269

Cichocka

De Zavala

A. G.

Kofta

Rozum

(2013). Threats to feminist identity and reactions to gender discrimination. Sex Roles, 68, 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0272-5

Cihangir

Barreto

Ellemers

(2014). Men as allies against sexism: The positive effects of a suggestion of sexism by male (vs. female) sources. Sage Open, 4, 1–12. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014539168

Crocker

Voelkl

Testa

(1991). Social stigma: The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.60.2.218

10.

DeSouza

Solberg

(2004). Women’s and men’s reactions to man-to-man sexual harassment: Does the sexual orientation of the victim matter? Sex Roles, 50, 623–639. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000027566.79507.96

11.

Effron

D. A.

Monin

(2010). Letting people off the hook: When do good deeds excuse transgressions? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1618–1634. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210385922

12.

Faul

Erdfelder

Buchner

Lang

A.-G.

(2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149–1160. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.41.4.1149

13.

Fousiani

van Prooijen

J. W.

(2019). Reactions to offenders: Psychological differences between beliefs versus punishment. British Journal of Social Psychology, 58, 894–916. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12320

14.

Goodman

J. K.

Cryder

C. E.

Cheema

(2013). Data collection in a flat world: The strengths and weaknesses of Mechanical Turk samples. Journal of Behavioral Decision Making, 26, 213–224. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdm.1753

15.

Graf

(2018). Sexual harassment at work in the era of #MeToo. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/social-trends/2018/04/04/sexual-harassment-at-work-in-the-era-of-metoo/#:~:text=education%20or%20less.-,About%20six%2Din%2Dten%20women%20say%20they%20have%20received%20unwanted,of%20men%20say%20the%20same

16.

Hail-Jares

Lowrey-Kinberg

Dunn

Gould

J. B.

(2020). False rape allegations: Do they lead to a wrongful conviction following the indictment of an innocent defendant? Justice Quarterly, 37, 281–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2018.1486449

17.

Hutchison

Abrams

Gutierrez

Viki

G. T.

(2008). Getting rid of the bad ones: The relationship between group identification, deviant derogation, and identity maintenance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 874–881. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.09.001

18.

Inman

M. L.

(2001). Do you see what I see?: Similarities and differences in victims’ and observers’ perceptions of discrimination. Social Cognition, 19, 521–546. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.19.5.521.19912

19.

Jussim

Coleman

Lerch

(1987). The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of three theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 536–546. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.52.3.536

20.

Kahneman

Miller

D. T.

(1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136–153. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.93.2.136

21.

Kahneman

Tversky

(1972). Subjective probability: A judgment of representativeness. Cognitive Psychology, 3, 430–454. https://doi.org/10.1016/0010-0285(72)90016-3

22.

Kaiser

C. R.

Miller

C. T.

(2001). Reacting to impending discrimination: Compensation for prejudice and attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1357–1367. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012710011

23.

Krumm

A. J.

Corning

A. F.

(2008). Who believes us when we try to conceal our prejudices? The effectiveness of moral credentials with in-groups versus out-groups. The Journal of Social Psychology, 148(6), 689–710. https://doi.org/10.3200/SOCP.148.6.689-710

24.

Lamont

(2015). The limited construction of an egalitarian masculinity: College-educated men’s dating and relationship narratives. Men and Masculinities, 18, 271–292. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X14557495

25.

Laurent

S. M.

Clark

B. A.

Walker

Wiseman

K. D.

(2014). Punishing hypocrisy: The roles of hypocrisy and moral emotions in deciding culpability and punishment of criminal and civil moral transgressors. Cognition & Emotion, 28, 59–83. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2013.801339

26.

Leaper

Arias

D. M.

(2011). College women’s feminist identity: A multidimensional analysis with implications for coping with sexism. Sex Roles, 64, 475–490. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9936-1

27.

Luthar

H. K.

Luthar

V. K.

(2007). A theoretical framework explaining cross-cultural sexual harassment: Integrating Hofstede and Schwartz. Journal of Labor Research, 28, 169–188. https://web.p.ebscohost.com/abstract?direct=true&profile=ehost&scope=site&authtype=crawler&jrnl=01953613&AN=23815047&h=QGi4nN6YgPhJmpulGIle8TV33t0z8xCoO%2fJGwONdeUn7iuOFRWO05Yah4EbFZft8PY9I3fZJ7M43OjL%2bPO1iVA%3d%3d&crl=c&resultNs=AdminWebAuth&resultLocal=ErrCrlNotAuth&crlhashurl=login.aspx%3fdirect%3dtrue%26profile%3dehost%26scope%3dsite%26authtype%3dcrawler%26jrnl%3d01953613%26AN%3d23815047.

28.

Macomber

(2018). “I’m sure as hell not putting any man on a pedestal”: Male privilege and accountability in domestic and sexual violence work. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 33, 1491–1518. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260515618944

29.

Magley

V. J.

Shupe

E. I.

(2005). Self-labeling sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 53, 173–189. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-5677-3

30.

Major

Sawyer

P. J.

(2009). Attributions to discrimination: Antecedents and consequences. In Nelson

T. D.

(Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 89–110). Psychology Press.

31.

McCullough

M. E.

Pargament

K. I.

Thoresen

C. E.

(2001). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. Guilford Press.

32.

McDermott

M. L.

Schwartz

Vallejo

(2015). Talking the talk but not walking the walk: Public reactions to hypocrisy in political scandal. American Politics Research, 43, 952–974. https://doi.org/10.1177/1532673X15577830

33.

Merritt

A. C.

Effron

D. A.

Monin

(2010). Moral self-licensing: When being good frees us to be bad. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 4, 344–357. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2010.00263.x

34.

Miller

D. T.

Turnbull

(1986). Expectancies and interpersonal processes. Annual Review of Psychology, 37, 233–256. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.ps.37.020186.001313

35.

Monin

Miller

D. T.

(2001). Moral credentials and the expression of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.1.33

36.

Niemi

Young

(2014). Blaming the victim in the case of rape. Psychological Inquiry, 25, 230–233. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2014.901127

37.

Paolacci

Chandler

(2014). Inside the Turk: Understanding Mechanical Turk as a participant pool. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 184–188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721414531598

38.

Peretz

(2020). Seeing the invisible knapsack: Feminist men’s strategic responses to the continuation of male privilege in feminist spaces. Men and Masculinities, 23, 447–475. https://doi.org/10.1177/1097184X18784990

39.

Pica

Sheahan

C. L.

Pozzulo

(2020). Prior allegations of harassment impact mock jurors’ perceptions of sexual harassment in a criminal trial. Sex Roles, 82, 541–549. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-019-01076-2

40.

Preacher

K. J.

Hayes

A. F.

(2004). SPSS and SAS procedures for estimating indirect effects in simple mediation models. Behavior Research Methods, Instruments, & Computers, 36(4), 717–731. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03206553

41.

Preacher

K. J.

Rucker

D. D.

Hayes

A. F.

(2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316

42.

Rotundo

Nguyen

D. H.

Sackett

P. R.

(2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.914

43.

Rubin

L. J.

Borgers

S. B.

(1990). Sexual harassment in universities during the 1980s. Sex Roles, 23, 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289228

44.

Shnabel

Anan

Y. B.

Kende

Bareket

Lazar

(2016). Help to perpetuate traditional gender roles: Benevolent sexism increases engagement in dependency-oriented cross-gender helping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 110, 55–75. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000037

45.

Sigal

Gibbs

M. S.

Goodrich

Rashid

Anjum

Hsu

Perrino

C. S.

Bolak Boratav

Carson-Arenas

van Baarsen

van der Pligt

Pan

W.-K.

(2005). Cross-cultural reactions to academic sexual harassment: Effects of individualist vs. collectivist culture and gender of participants. Sex Roles, 52, 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-1295-3

46.

Smith

R. H.

Powell

C. A.

Combs

D. J.

Schurtz

D. R.

(2009). Exploring the when and why of schadenfreude. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, 530–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2009.00181.x

47.

Stick

(2021). Conflicts in sporting masculinity: The beliefs and behaviors of Canadian male athletes. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 29, 315–334. https://doi.org/10.1177/10608265211004579

48.

Stuart

S. M.

McKimmie

B. M.

Masser

B. M.

(2019). Rape perpetrators on trial: The effect of sexual assault-related schemas on attributions of blame. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 34, 310–336. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260516640777

49.

Subašić

Hardacre

Elton

Branscombe

N. R.

Ryan

M. K.

Reynolds

K. J.

(2018). “We for She”: Mobilising men and women to act in solidarity for gender equality. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21, 707–724. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430218763272

50.

van Breen

J. A.

Spears

Kuppens

de Lemus

. (2017). A multiple identity approach to gender: Identification with women, identification with feminists, and their interaction. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, 1019. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01019

51.

Van Prooijen

J. W.

(2006). Retributive reactions to suspected offenders: The importance of social categorizations and guilt probability. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 715–726. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205284964

52.

Van Prooijen

J. W.

(2018). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Routledge.

53.

Wakefield

J. R.

Hopkins

Greenwood

R. M.

(2012). Thanks, but no thanks: Women’s avoidance of help-seeking in the context of a dependency-related stereotype. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 423–431. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312457659

54.

Wiley

Dunne

(2019). Comrades in the struggle? Feminist women prefer male allies who offer autonomy- not dependency-oriented help. Sex Roles, 80, 656–666. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0970-0

55.

Zucker

A. N.

(2004). Disavowing social identities: What it means when women say, “I’m not a feminist, but. . .”. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 423–435. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00159.x

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.07 MB