Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Allegations of Sexual Misconduct: A View from the Observation Deck of Power Distance Belief

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Business Ethics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

A Correction to this article was published on 01 December 2020

This article has been updated

Abstract

We seek to understand how third-party observers respond to allegations of sexual transgressions, whether their responses vary and if so why, how they determine perpetrator sanctions, who is more forgiving of them, and what is the psychological mechanism underlying this preference. We draw on one dimension of Hofstede's (Cultures and Organizations: Software of the Mind, McGraw-Hill, New York, 1991) theory of cultural orientations—power distance belief, and one dimension of Haidt's (Psychological Review, 108: 814–834, 2001) work on moral reasoning—moral decoupling. Results from three studies on recent real-life cases—those pertaining to Harvey Weinstein, Brett Kavanaugh, and Peter Martins—reveal interesting, consistent, and dramatic findings pertaining to these research questions. Specifically, compared to observers who endorse a low power distance belief (PDB), high PDB observers selectively suspend judgments of culpability and express higher evaluations of the alleged perpetrators, are significantly more forgiving of them, convey a lower preference for naming and shaming them, and consider the alleged transgressions as less serious. These outcomes are predicated on the psychological mechanism of moral decoupling. Both high and low PDB respondents decouple the perpetrators’ competence and morality. However, high PDB observers gauge the actions of the perpetrators by emphasizing competence, while low PDB observers gauge their actions by emphasizing morality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

Change history

Notes

  1. https://www.hofstede-insights.com/country-comparison/the-usa/.

  2. The full story was still accessible on the date of writing this paragraph at the following link: https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/from-aggressive-overtures-to-sexual-assault-harvey-weinsteins-accusers-tell-their-stories.

  3. Piecemealed from various online media outlets.

  4. https://www.forbes.com/sites/laurencoulman/2019/05/29/is-addressing-culture-the-key-to-workplace-sexual-harassment/#189fa8e622a8.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Shalini Sarin Jain.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Ethical Approval

All procedures performed in studies involving human participants were in accordance with the ethical standards of the institutional and/or national research committee (Institutional Review Board, University of Washington) and with the 1964 Helsinki declaration and its later amendments or comparable ethical standards.

Research Involving Human and Animal Rights

This article does not contain any studies performed on animals by the authors.

Informed Consent

Informed consent was obtained from all individual participants included in the studies.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

The initial online publication contained a typesetting mistake. The original article has been corrected.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file1 (DOCX 36 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Jain, S.S., Lee, J.S. Allegations of Sexual Misconduct: A View from the Observation Deck of Power Distance Belief. J Bus Ethics 175, 391–410 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04644-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10551-020-04644-9

Keywords

Navigation