Abstract

Organizational decisions often are critically dependent on reputational information. However, such reputational information is not always accurate. In this research, we examine the lingering negative effects of false accusations on trust and decision-making in an organizational hiring context. In four experimental studies, we assess how false accusations against an applicant that are later refuted (vs. confirmed) may continue to exert negative effects on trust and hiring decisions. The results demonstrate that refuting a false accusation can significantly increase—but may not fully restore—trust in the accused. Moreover, false accusations may not only continue to undermine trust but can also compromise hiring decisions. Critically, however, these “stickiness” effects only occurred when false accusations questioned the applicant’s integrity, rather than their competence. This was explained not by a decreased ability to rebuild damaged trust, but rather by its greater initial erosion: exonerating information in fact repaired more trust after false integrity accusations (compared to false competence accusations), but this was insufficient to restore the greater initial adverse effects of such accusations on trust. 

Citation

Haesevoets, T., Reinders Folmer, C., & Brebels, L. (2024). Guilty When Proven Innocent? The Lingering Negative Effects of False Accusations on Trust and Organizational Decision-Making. Journal of Business and Psychology, 1-25. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-024-09992-1

Read the full article