Cited by 200Psychology of Moral and Emotional JudgmentForgiveness and Related BehaviorsSocial and Intergroup Psychology

Letting People Off the Hook: When Do Good Deeds Excuse Transgressions?

Effron, Daniel A., Monin, Benoît·2010·Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

Abstract

Three studies examined when and why an actor's prior good deeds make observers more willing to excuse--or license--his or her subsequent, morally dubious behavior. In a pilot study, actors' good deeds made participants more forgiving of the actors' subsequent transgressions. In Study 1, participants only licensed blatant transgressions that were in a different domain than actors' good deeds; blatant transgressions in the same domain appeared hypocritical and suppressed licensing (e.g., fighting adolescent drug use excused sexual harassment, but fighting sexual harassment did not). Study 2 replicated these effects and showed that good deeds made observers license ambiguous transgressions (e.g., behavior that might or might not represent sexual harassment) regardless of whether the good deeds and the transgression were in the same or in a different domain--but only same-domain good deeds did so by changing participants' construal of the transgressions. Discussion integrates two models of why licensing occurs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0146167210385922

Cites

27 of 27 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Audiences must perceive a direct contradiction between claims and actions to recognize hypocrisy.

    “audiences must perceive a direct contradiction between claims and actions to recognize hypocrisy”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Effron and Monin, 2010

  • Attempts to make positive claims directly contradicted by recent negative events are more likely to be viewed as hypocritical and, when detected, likely wipe out positive effects of prior good deeds.

    “attempts to make positive claims that are directly contradicted by recent negative events are more likely to be viewed as hypocritical (Godfrey, 2005) and when detected will likely wipe out the positive effects of prior good deeds (Effron and Monin, 2010).”

    From Strategic Silence: Withholding Certification Status as a Hypocrisy Avoidance Tactic (2018) · cites this paper as Effron and Monin, 2010

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Effron, D. A., & Monin, B.
Affiliations
Stanford University (US)
Corresponding author
Effron, Daniel A.
Venue
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin
Published
2010-10-26
Volume
36
Issue
12
Pages
1618-1634
ISSN
  • 0146-1672 (ISSN-L)
  • 1552-7433
OpenAlex
W2092843370
Cited by
199
References
27
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 17 · 2024: 16 · 2023: 18 · 2022: 21 · 2021: 15 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 7 · 2018: 11 · 2017: 11 · 2016: 13 · 2015: 10 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 5
FWCI
3.87
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Forgiveness and Related Behaviors
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
Keywords
moral transgression, forgiveness, hypocrisy, domain specificity, construal level, moral judgment, sexual harassment
MeSH terms
Adolescent, Decision Making, Female, Guilt, Humans, Interpersonal Relations, Judgment, Male, Morals, Pilot Projects, Punishment, Social Behavior, Social Justice, Young Adult

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review