Moral character and competence judgments of sexual harassers and fraudsters in academic and business contexts.

Fraud and sexual harassment have been haunting academia for years. While the scientific community proposed strategies to overcome misconduct in research, the problem of sexual harassment seems unresolved. One reason for this might be a difference between men and women in the perception of the moral character and competence of sexual harassers. Across four studies (N = 3776), in the UK and the US, men judged the sexual harasser as less immoral than women (Studies 1, 2, and 3a), even though sexual harassment was considered more harmful than fraud (Study 2). Consequently, men demanded less punishment for sexual harassers than women (Studies 1 and 2). This gender difference was not explained by moral rationalization (Study 3a). Further, a sexual harasser was judged as more competent than a fraudster but in an academic, not business, context (Studies 1 and 2). This effect was driven by the moral decoupling process, which participants used to separate competence judgments from moral judgments (Study 3b). Overall, these results suggest that in the academic context, gender interests most likely shape moral and punishment judgments towards sexual harassers, while the decoupling process allows both genders to perceive them as competent and immoral at the same time.