Out of the Frying Pan and Into the Fire: When It’s Irresponsible to End One’s Association with a Transgressor

Abstract: Individuals associated with a transgressor (“associates”) are at risk of stigmatization even when they are not responsible for the wrongdoing. However, there is limited insight into how these judgments might occur. In Study 1 (N =282), we found that after a coworker’s transgression, associates with high-power (compared to the transgressor) were judged less favorably for leaving their organization than those with low-power. The effect was mediated by the perceived responsibility of the decision to leave (vs. stay). In Study 2 (N = 592), we further investigated this mediating mechanism by manipulating whether the decision to leave (vs. stay) was voluntary (vs. involuntary) and found that although associates with high-power who left their organizations following a scandal were again judged less favorably than those with low-power when the decision was voluntary, these negative judgments were attenuated when the decision was involuntary. Finally, in Study 3 (N = 588), we found that individuals gave less help to associates with high-power (vs. low-power) and associates who stayed at their organization (vs. left) following the scandal. These behaviors, again, were mediated by the perceived responsibility of the associate’s decision.

Keywords: stigma-by-association, perceived moral contagion, moral spillover, stigma, organizations, transgressors.