Attributional analysis of rumour denials

Politicians do it, corporations do it, and defendants in court do it. Many social encounters involve denials of rumours or accusations of wrongdoing. However, denials are not always effective. Sometimes, denials lead to an even more negative evaluation of the target of the rumour (in other words, the denial 'boomerangs'). We argue that this is more likely to happen in situations where people only hear the denial and are not aware of the rumour. Denial in the absence of a rumour leads to uncertainty about the reasons for the denial and the audience attributes the denial to internal reasons ('there must be something wrong about you') instead of external masons ('you are just responding to false rumours'). We conducted two studies comparing conditions involving denial in the presence of a rumour (rumour + denial) versus denial in the absence of a rumour (denial only). Study 1 found greater uncertainty about the reasons for denial and negative evaluation of the rumour target in denial-only condition, confirming the boomerang effect. Study 2 replicated the boomerang effect. Further, as predicted, the denial was attributed more to internal rather than external causes in the denial-only condition. Finally, mediation analysis revealed that attributions underlie the boomerang effect.