Account credibility and public image: Excuses, justifications, denials, and sexual harassment

Abstract

Two studies are presented which both examine and challenge theories of account giving and public image following an accusation of sexual harassment in the workplace. A total of 1291 (709 college students in Study 1, and 482 working adults in Study 2) participants rated an account given by a male co‐worker accused of sexual harassment. When the accused accepted responsibility for his actions he was generally rated more credible, more likeable, more dedicated, and more competent compared to when he relied on excuses or denials. The public images of both the accuser and the accused were tarnished when the account included a denial and attacked the credibility of the accuser. Female respondents rated specific behaviors as more sexually harassing than did males, and females were generally more critical of accounts. In addition, excuses led to more warnings, punishments, and advice for the accused, while denials prompted respondents to study the matter further or refer the entire incident to a higher‐up. While there were few differences between the college students and the working adults, students in general were more apt to comfort the female accuser and rate her as more competent, likeable and dedicated than were the non‐students. Finally, these studies challenge the existing theories of account giving and public image, and should lay to rest the notion that full apologies and excuses are mitigating in serious account episodes.