Moral evaluations of reporting transgressors are more favourable than people expect

When close interpersonal ties involve unethical behaviour, should we report the misconduct? Through four studies, we investigate how social relationships shape moral evaluations of transgression reporting, potential reporters' expectations of evaluators' judgements, and, critically, the alignment between anticipated and actual assessments. We discovered that potential reporters who report (as opposed to those who do not report) transgressors are perceived as more morally upright in their behaviour, more ethical and warmer, regardless of whether the transgressors are close or distant (Study 1). Potential reporters anticipated that reporting (rather than not reporting) transgressors would prompt evaluators to judge them more favourably, irrespective of the relationship's closeness (Study 2). However, reporters expected lower evaluations of morality and warmth when reporting close versus distant transgressors (Study 2). Evaluators' actual evaluations of reporting transgressions proved more favourable than reporters anticipated, particularly concerning behavioural moral rightness, morality and warmth (Study 3). Reporters and evaluators differed in their moral valuations of loyalty versus justice, leading reporters to underestimate the positive impact that reporting close transgressors would have in evaluators' eyes (Study 4). These findings imply that evaluators are more supportive of reporting transgressors than reporters anticipate and that reporters overestimate the social costs associated with such actions.