People have a tendency to predict they will engage in more socially desirable behavior than they actually do, such as overestimating their future charitable contributions or extent of cooperation in a social dilemma. The problem with such behavioral forecasting errors is that they can lead to negative consequences both for the self and for others. One particularly negative interpersonal consequence may be that such errors can produce overly harsh evaluations of others, especially those who do not act in a way that most people predict they themselves would act. My research explores the relationship between behavioral forecasts and condemnation in two organizational conflict situations: sexual harassment and negotiation situations. Specifically, it examines whether behavioral forecasts can drive interpersonal impressions of individuals who behave with less action and confrontation than observers predict they themselves would have responded, resulting in condemnation of those individuals. Mechanisms to align behavioral forecasts with actual behavior and consequently reduce condemnation are explored, shedding light on an important possible cause of behavioral forecasting errors: the failure to consider important motivations likely experienced in the actual situation. The theoretical and practical implications of this research are discussed.