Moral Foundations, Himpathy, and Punishment Following Organizational Sexual Misconduct Allegations

Abstract

We build on deontic justice and moral foundations theories to shed light on responses to sexual misconduct at work by proposing a model that explains why some third parties punish accusing victims and support alleged perpetrators. We theorize that when third parties are given conflicting he-said, she-said information, they intuitively evaluate organizational injustice based on moral values. We further theorize that binding moral foundations (loyalty, authority, purity) give rise to sympathy toward men accused of sexual misconduct and anger toward female accusers. Across five studies (total n = 5,413) utilizing archival, field, and vignette designs, we examined third-party responses to sexual misconduct accusations ranging in severity across several industries. Third-party endorsement of binding moral foundations was linked to increased perpetrator-directed sympathy and victim-directed anger (Studies 1–4). These emotions jointly mediated the relationship between binding values and credibility perceptions of the accusing victim and the alleged perpetrator (Studies 2 and 3). Moreover, victim credibility was negatively associated with social sanctions and punishment severity levied toward the accusing victim, and perpetrator credibility was negatively associated with the same punishment outcomes for the alleged perpetrator (Studies 3 and 4). In Study 5, we found that managers framing the accusing victim as disloyal exacerbated negative judgments and emotions toward the victim and positive judgments and emotions toward the perpetrator for individuals who highly ascribe to binding moral foundations. We discuss the theoretical contributions and practical implications of moral concerns on third parties’ emotions, judgments, and motivations to punish actors involved in sexual misconduct allegations. Supplemental Material: The e-companion is available at https://doi.org/10.1287/orsc.2022.1652 .

Third-party perceptions of mistreatment: A meta-analysis and integrative model of reactions to perpetrators and victims.

“…Another promising complementary lens is system justification theory, which has only recently been applied in the third-party literature (David et al, 2023; Dodson et al, 2023). System justification theory argues that observers may justify unfortunate circumstances even at the expense of their own long-term interests (Jost, 2019; Jost & Banaji, 1994).…”

“…For example, the evaluation of the perpetrator was operationalized using measures of overall satisfaction with the party or the trustworthiness, character, and fairness of the party (e.g., Anderson et al, 2024; Blader et al, 2013; Evans et al, 2018; Falk & Fox, 2014; Huang et al, 2015; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015). Evaluation of the victim was operationalized using measures of overall satisfaction with the party or the trustworthiness, competence, and credibility of the party (e.g., Dodson et al, 2023; Hu et al, 2022; Kahalon et al, 2022; Peng et al, 2014; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015).…”

“…Antisocial behavior was coded consistent with its conceptualization as negative behaviors that have the potential to cause harm to some target (Robinson & O’Leary-Kelly, 1998). Antisocial behavior toward the perpetrator was operationalized using measures of social sanctions, punishment, and deviance directed at the source of the mistreatment (e.g., Chen & Liu, 2019; Dodson et al, 2023; Hericher & Bridoux, 2023; Lin & Loi, 2021; Mitchell et al, 2015; O’Reilly et al, 2016). Antisocial behavior toward the victim was operationalized using measures of social sanctions, exclusion, and deviance directed at the recipient of the mistreatment (e.g., Cheng et al, 2023; Dodson et al, 2023; Mitchell et al, 2015; Xu et al, 2020).…”

“…Fortunately, studies in the third-party literature often operationalize cognitive evaluations of perpetrators and victims, in the form of global assessments or valenced judgments of them (e.g., Blader et al, 2013; Dodson et al, 2023; Hu et al, 2022; Huang et al, 2015; Reich & Hershcovis, 2015). Importantly, theorizing on the behavioral effects of emotions draws a distinction between affect-driven behaviors and judgment-driven behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).…”

Ethical disagreements in technology and management research

“…Unfortunately, some studies link the foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity to normatively bad outcomes such as hate and prejudice toward marginalized groups (Hoover et al, 2021; see also a Tweet from and to victim blaming in sexual misconduct cases (Dodson et al, 2023). Given these undesirable outcomes, our intention here is not to say that researchers should necessarily embrace these foundations more, but that they need to at least consider and recognize them because a large number of people endorse these moral foundations.…”