In human relationships, loyalty to a friend often shapes decisions and actions. But what happens when that loyalty extends to their connections?

New research from Cornell’s SC Johnson College of Business looks at how loyalty can influence support for someone indirectly connected to us, even when that person is accused of unethical behavior.

The researchers wanted to understand why certain people, like Harvey Weinstein and Jeffrey Epstein, could continue unethical actions for so long without being reported.

“We know loyalty can keep close friends from blowing the whistle,” the researchers explain, “but we wanted to explore why people who aren’t directly connected to the wrongdoer also stay silent.”

Unjust loyalty

Their theory was that loyalty to direct ties—friends or colleagues—might extend to the people connected to them, even if those indirect ties were accused of wrongdoing.

Their findings confirmed this. Loyalty to a friend often transferred to support for the friend’s connections, even if those individuals were accused of serious misconduct like sexual harassment, fraud, or theft. This happened regardless of how strong the evidence was. This challenges the idea that loyalty only affects direct ties, suggesting a wider influence within social networks.

The study’s results come from 11 studies with 2,249 participants over five years. In some experiments, participants were asked if they would verbally support a colleague’s friend, a person they didn’t know, after that friend was accused of sexual harassment. The participants’ loyalty to their colleague often extended to supporting the accused.

Stubborn loyalty

“The loyalty effect held up, no matter how much evidence was presented against the accused,” the researchers note. “We increased the evidence from a second accusation to video evidence, and loyalty still boosted support.”

To address critiques that these were hypothetical scenarios, the researchers ran a real-world test in a college fraternity. A “confederate” member of the frat asked others to support a friend, who was supposedly accused of stealing campus funds. Each member was given a petition and asked to sign as the second person, right after the confederate.

The setup prevented “social proof”—the idea that people might sign because they saw others had done so first. Even in this real-world setting, loyalty to the confederate influenced support for someone the participants didn’t know.

The researchers say their findings have practical implications for workplaces trying to prevent and manage unethical behavior.

“Loyalty is a double-edged sword,” they explain. “While it helps organizations by fostering dedication and motivation, personal loyalties can prevent fair and efficient decisions when wrongdoing occurs.”