Across two studies (Ns = 268 and 574), we examined the perceived legitimacy of sexual harassment allegations made against male allies. Overall, observers were less inclined to believe an allegation (Studies 1 and 2) and endorsed less severe punishments against a perpetrator who engaged in egalitarian (vs. sexist) behaviors toward women (Studies 1 and 2). Observers also endorsed weaker reparatory measures, were more willing to move past the allegation, and were more inclined to blame the victim for the incident when an egalitarian (vs. sexist) man was accused, especially when there was greater uncertainty surrounding his guilt (Study 2). Importantly, these effects were mediated by perpetrator typicality: the egalitarian perpetrator less closely resembled a typical perpetrator of sexual harassment, which, in turn, predicted more lenient evaluations (Study 2). These findings highlight how accusations of male allies’ problematic behavior can reinforce widespread scepticism surrounding sexual harassment allegations and discriminatory attitudes towards victims.

跨越两项研究（Ns = 268 和 574），我们检查了对男性盟友的性骚扰指控的合法性。总体而言，观察者不太愿意相信一项指控（研究 1 和 2），并且赞同对对女性采取平等主义（与性别歧视）行为的肇事者进行较轻的惩罚（研究 1 和 2）。观察员还支持较弱的赔偿措施，更愿意绕过指控，并且更倾向于在平等主义（与性别歧视）男子被指控时将事件归咎于受害者，尤其是当他的罪行存在更大的不确定性时（研究2）。重要的是，这些影响是由施暴者的典型性所调节的：平等主义的施暴者不太像典型的性骚扰施暴者，这反过来又预测了更宽松的评估（研究 2）。