AbstractEveryday 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.