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.
AbersonC. L.BostynD. H.CarpenterT.ConriqueB. G.Giner-SorollaR.LewisN. A.JrMontoyaA.M.BrandonW.N.ReifmanA.SchoemannA.M.SoderbergC. (2020). Techniques and solutions for sample size determination in psychology: Supplementary material for “power to detect what? Considerations for planning and evaluating sample size.”
2.
AbramsD.RutlandA.FerrellJ. M.PelletierJ. (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
3.
AmodioD. M.DevineP. G.Harmon-JonesE. (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
4.
BhattacharyaG.StockdaleM. 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
5.
BuhrmesterM.KwangT.GoslingS. 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
6.
CastanoE.PaladinoM. P.CoullA.YzerbytV. 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
7.
CichockaA.De ZavalaA. G.KoftaM.RozumJ. (2013). Threats to feminist identity and reactions to gender discrimination. Sex Roles, 68, 605–619. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-013-0272-5
8.
CihangirS.BarretoM.EllemersN. (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
9.
CrockerJ.VoelklK.TestaM. (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.
DeSouzaE.SolbergJ. (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.
EffronD. A.MoninB. (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.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA.-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.
FousianiK.van ProoijenJ. 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.
GoodmanJ. K.CryderC. E.CheemaA. (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
Hail-JaresK.Lowrey-KinbergB.DunnK.GouldJ. 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.
HutchisonP.AbramsD.GutierrezR.VikiG. 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.
InmanM. 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.
JussimL.ColemanL.LerchL. (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
KaiserC. R.MillerC. 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.
KrummA. J.CorningA. 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.
LamontE. (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.
LaurentS. M.ClarkB. A.WalkerS.WisemanK. 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.
LeaperC.AriasD. 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
MacomberK. (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
MajorB.SawyerP. J. (2009). Attributions to discrimination: Antecedents and consequences. In NelsonT. D. (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (pp. 89–110). Psychology Press.
31.
McCulloughM. E.PargamentK. I.ThoresenC. E. (2001). Forgiveness: Theory, research, and practice. Guilford Press.
32.
McDermottM. L.SchwartzD.VallejoS. (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.
MerrittA. C.EffronD. A.MoninB. (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
MoninB.MillerD. 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
PaolacciG.ChandlerJ. (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.
PeretzT. (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.
PicaE.SheahanC. L.PozzuloJ. (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.
PreacherK. J.HayesA. 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.
PreacherK. J.RuckerD. D.HayesA. F. (2007). Addressing moderated mediation hypotheses: Theory, methods, and prescriptions. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 42(1), 185–227. https://doi.org/10.1080/00273170701341316
42.
RotundoM.NguyenD. H.SackettP. 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.
RubinL. J.BorgersS. B. (1990). Sexual harassment in universities during the 1980s. Sex Roles, 23, 397–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289228
44.
ShnabelN.AnanY. B.KendeA.BareketO.LazarY. (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.
SigalJ.GibbsM. S.GoodrichC.RashidT.AnjumA.HsuD.PerrinoC. S.Bolak BoratavH.Carson-ArenasA.van BaarsenB.van der PligtJ.PanW.-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.
SmithR. H.PowellC. A.CombsD. J.SchurtzD. 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.
StickM. (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.
StuartS. M.McKimmieB. M.MasserB. 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.
SubašićE.HardacreS.EltonB.BranscombeN. R.RyanM. K.ReynoldsK. 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 BreenJ. A.SpearsR.KuppensT.de LemusS. (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 ProoijenJ. 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 ProoijenJ. W. (2018). The psychology of conspiracy theories. Routledge.
53.
WakefieldJ. R.HopkinsN.GreenwoodR. 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.
WileyS.DunneC. (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.
ZuckerA. 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.
