Accounts Offered for Unethical Research Practices: Effects on the Evaluations of Acts and Actors

The effect of accounts on observers' perceptions was assessed in a questionnaire mailed to a random sample of psychologists. Subjects read a fictitious description either of a researcher who had plagiarized a paper or of one who had fabricated data. The researcher's account of his action was quoted following the scenario; the accounts consisted of excuses, justifications, or denials. Subjects responded to questions calling for their evaluations of the researcher's character, the act itself, and the appropriate sanctions. Denials produced the most positive evaluations of the act and the researcher's character, whereas justifications produced the worst evaluations. These results demonstrate the problematic nature of attempting to justify one's behavior following serious offenses.