ABSTRACT
Analysts of evil and violence express the concern that to explain harmdoing may result in a condoning attitude toward perpetrators. An examination of research relevant to this hypothesis suggests that there are a variety of cognitive and affective processes that may produce a relatively condoning attitude towardperpetrators as a result of explaining their actions. Evidence from 3 exploratory studies supported the exonerating effects of explanations. Participants generating explicit explanations of harmdoing displayed a more condoning attitude toward perpetrators than did those forming impressions of perpetrators without first explaining the acts. Participants reading social-psychological explanations of harmdoing also judged the researcher to be more condoning ofperpetrators than those reading dispositional explanations of the same behavior. Implications of these findings are discussed.
