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

IF 4 2区心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations Pub Date : 2022-05-12 DOI:10.1177/13684302221094432

Morgana Lizzio‐Wilson, A. Klas, E. J. R. Clarke

{"title":"When “good guys” do bad things: Evaluations of sexual harassment allegations against male allies","authors":"Morgana Lizzio‐Wilson, A. Klas, E. J. R. Clarke","doi":"10.1177/13684302221094432","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"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.","PeriodicalId":48099,"journal":{"name":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","volume":"51 11","pages":"1053 - 1074"},"PeriodicalIF":4.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Group Processes & Intergroup Relations","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13684302221094432","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 1

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.

查看原文本刊更多论文

当“好人”做坏事时:对男性盟友性骚扰指控的评估

在两项研究中(n = 268和574)，我们考察了对男性盟友的性骚扰指控的感知合法性。总体而言，观察者不太倾向于相信指控(研究1和2)，并且支持对对女性采取平等主义(与性别歧视)行为的犯罪者进行较轻的惩罚(研究1和2)。观察者还支持较弱的赔偿措施，更愿意跨过指控，并且更倾向于在平等主义(与性别歧视)男性被指控时将事件归咎于受害者。尤其是当他的内疚有更大的不确定性时(研究2)。重要的是，这些影响是由犯罪者的典型性介导的:崇尚平等主义的施暴者不太像典型的性骚扰施暴者，这反过来又预示着更宽松的评估(研究2)。这些发现强调了对男性盟友问题行为的指控如何强化了围绕性骚扰指控和对受害者的歧视态度的普遍怀疑。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Group Processes & Intergroup Relations PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL-

CiteScore

8.50

自引率

4.50%

发文量

期刊介绍： Group Processes & Intergroup Relations is a scientific social psychology journal dedicated to research on social psychological processes within and between groups. It provides a forum for and is aimed at researchers and students in social psychology and related disciples (e.g., organizational and management sciences, political science, sociology, language and communication, cross cultural psychology, international relations) that have a scientific interest in the social psychology of human groups. The journal has an extensive editorial team that includes many if not most of the leading scholars in social psychology of group processes and intergroup relations from around the world.