Explaining Failures At Work: An Accounter’s Dilemma
Abstract
Everyday explanations for failures at work were studied within the context of impression-management and self-esteem theories. American undergraduates described incidents from their work histories in which they had used accounts to explain a shortcoming on their part. Students explained their behavior truthfully 45? of the time. When the explanations given were false, they were rated as being more commonly given by others and as being more believable than the truthful explanations. Compared to other explanations the students felt could have been offered, those actually offered were also rated as being more commonly offered by others and as more believable. The results are consistent with the notion that explanations for failures in work-related settings are chosen based on how acceptable they will be to the immediate audience. © 1989 Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.
Recommended Citation
Riordan, C. A., James, M. K., & Runzi, M. J. (1989). Explaining Failures At Work: An Accounter’s Dilemma. Journal of General Psychology, 116(2), pp. 197-205. Taylor and Francis Group; Psychology Press.
The definitive version is available at https://doi.org/10.1080/00221309.1989.9711123
Department(s)
Psychological Science
International Standard Serial Number (ISSN)
1940-0888; 0022-1309
Document Type
Article - Journal
Document Version
Citation
File Type
text
Language(s)
English
Rights
© 2023 Taylor and Francis Group; Psychology Press, All rights reserved.
Publication Date
01 Jan 1989
