This study investigated the mediating effects of personality traits, sexism, and bystander attitudes toward sexual harassment (BASH) among female navy personnel in Taiwan. A cluster sampling method was used to recruit 281 participants, with data collected on age, sexism perceptions, and BASH via a structured questionnaire. Descriptive analyses, analysis of variance (ANOVA), and structural equation modeling (SEM) revealed that personnel aged 21 to 30 and with 1 to 4 years of service reported significantly lower sexism scores. Older personnel, officers, and personnel with more years of service had significantly higher BASH scores than their younger, lower-level, and less experienced counterparts. Agreeableness and openness personality traits and sexism can explain female BASH. SEM results indicated that openness was the strongest explainer of BASH (β = .30), followed by age (β = .18), with sexism perceptions fully mediating the relationship between agreeableness and openness traits and BASH. Instructional implications and recommendations are discussed.
BellM. E.DardisC. M.VentoS. A.StreetA. E. (2018). Victims of sexual harassment and sexual assault in the military: Understanding risks and promoting recovery. Military Psychology, 30(3), 219–228. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000144
3.
BlackstoneA.HouleJ.UggenC. (2014). “I didn’t recognize it as a bad experience until I was much older”: Age, experience, and workers’ perceptions of sexual harassment. Sociological Spectrum, 34(4), 314–337. https://doi.org/10.1080/02732173.2014.917247
4.
BoldryJ.WoodW.KashyD. A. (2001). Gender stereotypes and the evaluation of men and women in military training. Journal of Social Issues, 57(4), 689–705. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00236
5.
Bowes-SperryL.O’Leary-KellyA. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30(2), 288–306. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2005.16387886
6.
BrandtM. J.CrawfordJ. T. (2019). Studying a heterogeneous array of target groups can help us understand prejudice. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 28(3), 292–298. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721419830382
7.
BrasselS. T.DavisT. M.JonesM. K.Miller-TejadaS.ThorneK. M.AreguinM. A. (2020). The importance of intersectionality for research on the sexual harassment of Black queer women at work. Translational Issues in Psychological Science, 6(4), 383–391. https://doi.org/10.1037/tps0000261
8.
BriodyE. K. (1988). Fitting in: Newcomer adaptation in a corporate research setting. Central Issues in Anthropology, 7(2), 19–38. https://doi.org/10.1525/cia.1988.7.2.19
9.
BrislinR. W.LoK. D. (2006). Culture, personality and people’s uses of time: Key interrelationships. In ThomasJ. C.SegalD. L. (Eds.), Comprehensive handbook of personality and psychopathology (Vol. 1, pp. 44–64). John Wiley & Sons.
10.
BurnW. L. (2019). The age of equipoise: A study of the mid-Victorian generation. Norton/Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780367351502 (Original work published 1964)
11.
BuschaC. A. (2023). Overturning the “risk rule” of 1988, opting for new risks: US women servicemembers and the war in Afghanistan. Armed Forces & Society, 49(4), 1035–1047. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X221103295
12.
CokerA. L.BushH. M.BrancatoC. J.HuangZ.ClearE. R.FollingstadD. R. (2020). Longer term impact of bystander training to reduce violence acceptance and sexism. Journal of School Violence, 19(4), 525–538. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2020.1760108
13.
ConteJ. M.JacobsR. R. (2003). Validity evidence linking polychronicity and big five personality dimensions to absence, lateness, and supervisory performance ratings. Human Performance, 16(2), 107–129. https://doi.org/10.1207/S15327043HUP1602_1
14.
CostaP. T.Jr.McCraeR. R.DyeD. A. (1991). Facet scales for agreeableness and conscientiousness: A revision of the NEO Personality Inventory. Personality and Individual Differences, 12(9), 887–898. https://doi.org/10.1016/0191-8869(91)90177-D
15.
DardisC. M.ReinhardtK. M.FoynesM. M.MedoffN. E.StreetA. E. (2018). “Who are you going to tell? Who’s going to believe you?”: Women’s experiences disclosing military sexual trauma. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 42(4), 414–429. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684318796783
16.
DeKeseredyW. S.Hall-SanchezA. (2017). Adult pornography and violence against women in the heartland: Results from a rural Southeast Ohio study. Violence against Women, 23(7), 830–849. https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216648795
DuT. V.YardleyA. E.ThomasK. M. (2021). Mapping big five personality traits within and across domains of interpersonal functioning. Assessment, 28(5), 1358–1375. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191120913952
19.
EstradaA. X.BerggrenA. W. (2009). Sexual harassment and its impact for women officers and cadets in the Swedish armed forces. Military Psychology, 21(2), 162–185. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600902768727
20.
FilstadC. (2004). How newcomers use role models in organizational socialization. Journal of Workplace Learning, 16(7), 396–409. https://doi.org/10.1108/13665620410558297
21.
FishbeinM.AjzenI. (2011). Predicting and changing behavior: The reasoned action approach. Psychology Press.
22.
FranklinC. A.BradyP. Q.JurekA. L. (2017). Responding to gendered violence among college students: The impact of participant characteristics on direct bystander intervention behavior. Journal of School Violence, 16(2), 189–206. https://doi.org/10.1080/15388220.2017.1284450
23.
FreisS. D.GurungR. A. (2013). A Facebook analysis of helping behavior in online bullying. Psychology of Popular Media Culture, 2(1), 11–19. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0030239
24.
FungA.MaE. (2000). Formal vs. informal use of television and sex-role stereotyping in Hong Kong. Sex Roles, 42, 57–81. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1007032227501
25.
GidyczC. A.WyattJ.GalbreathN. W.AxelradS. H.McConeD. R. (2018). Sexual assault prevention in the military: Key issues and recommendations. Military Psychology, 30(3), 240–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2018.1489663
26.
GiffordR. (1982). Projected interpersonal distance and orientation choices: Personality, sex, and social situation. Social Psychology Quarterly, 45, 145–152. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033647
27.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2018). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. In FiskeS. T. (Ed.), Social cognition (pp. 116–160). Routledge.
28.
GlickP.FiskeS. T.MladinicA.SaizJ. L.AbramsD.MasserB.. . .LópezW. L. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79(5), 763–775. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.79.5.763
29.
GloorJ. L.OkimotoT. G.LiX.GazdagB. A.RyanM. K. (2024). How identity impacts bystander responses to workplace mistreatment. Journal of Management, 50(7), 2641–2674. https://doi.org/10.1177/01492063231177976
30.
Godier-McBardL. R.GillinN.FosseyM. (2021). We also served: The health and well-being of female veterans in the UK. Confederation of Service Charities; Veterans & Families Institute for Military Social Research. anglia.ac.uk
31.
GoodwinR.GrahamJ.DiekmannK. A. (2020). Good intentions aren’t good enough: Moral courage in opposing sexual harassment. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 86, Article 103894. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2019.103894
32.
HammondM. D.MilojevP.HuangY.SibleyC. G. (2017). Benevolent sexism and hostile sexism across the ages. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 9(7), 863–874. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617727588
33.
HardiesK. (2019). Personality, social norms, and sexual harassment in the workplace. Personality and Individual Differences, 151, 109496. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2019.07.006
34.
HellmerK.StensonJ. T.JylhäK. M. (2018). What’s (not) underpinning ambivalent sexism? Revisiting the roles of ideology, religiosity, personality, demographics, and men’s facial hair in explaining hostile and benevolent sexism. Personality and Individual Differences, 122, 29–37. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2017.10.001
35.
HjalmarssonA. K.DådermanA. M. (2022). Relationship between emotional intelligence, personality, and self-perceived individual work performance: A cross-sectional study on the Swedish version of TEIQue-SF. Current Psychology, 41, 2558–2573. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-020-00753-w
36.
HollandK. J.CiprianoA. E. (2019). Bystander response to sexual assault disclosures in the US military: Encouraging survivors to use formal resources. American Journal of Community Psychology, 64(1–2), 203–218. https://doi.org/10.1002/ajcp.12333
HongZ. R.LinH. S.McCarthy VeachP. (2008). Effects of an extracurricular science intervention on science performance, self-worth, social skills, and sexist attitudes of Taiwanese adolescents from single-parent families. Sex Roles, 59(7), 555–567. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9453-z
39.
HuL. T.BentlerP. M. (1999). Cutoff criteria for fit indexes in covariance structure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Structural Equation Modeling, 6(1), 1–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10705519909540118
40.
IvarssonS.EstradaA. X.BerggrenA. W. (2009). Understanding men’s attitudes toward women in the Swedish Armed Forces. Military Psychology, 17(4), 269–282. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1704_2
41.
IwasakiM.PicchielloM. C.MorganC. H.HenningerA. L. (2022). Voices of female sexual assault survivors: Striving for survivor-centered reporting processes in the US criminal justice system. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 47(1), 65–79. https://doi.org/10.1177/03616843221136869
42.
JohnO. P.SrivastavaS. (1999). The Big-Five trait taxonomy: History, measurement, and theoretical perspectives. In PervinL. A.JohnO. P. (Eds.), Handbook of personality: Theory and research (2nd ed., pp. 102–138). Guilford Press.
43.
KinoeY. (2018, July15–20). Interpersonal distancing in cooperation: Effect of confederate’s interpersonal distance preferences. In Human Aspects of IT for the Aged Population. Applications in Health, Assistance, and Entertainment: 4th International Conference (pp. 334–347). Springer International Publishing.
44.
KobanK.SteinJ. P.EckhardtV.OhlerP. (2018). Quid pro quo in Web 2.0. Connecting personality traits and Facebook usage intensity to uncivil commenting intentions in public online discussions. Computers in Human Behavior, 79, 9–18. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2017.10.015
45.
LamC. B.ChanD. K. S. (2007). The use of cyberpornography by young men in Hong Kong: Some psychosocial correlates. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 36(4), 588–598. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-006-9124-5
46.
La RoccoJ. M.JonesA. P. (1980). Organizational conditions affecting withdrawal intentions and decisions as moderated by work experience. Psychological Reports, 46(Suppl. 3), 1223–1231. https://doi.org/10.2466/pr0.1980.46.3c.1223
47.
LatourJ.McDonoughE. (2019). Medical reserve corps: Increasing community resilience in mass casualties through active bystander training. Health Security, 17(6), 507–511. https://doi.org/10.1089/hs.2019.0106
48.
LeeH. W.KimS.LiewJ. (2021). Spectator sports as context for examining observers’ agreeableness, social identification, and empathy in a high-stakes conflict situation. Psychological Reports, 124(4), 1788–1806. https://doi.org/10.1177/0033294120948228
49.
LeeP. S.ChenH. T.HongZ. R. (2018). Effects of a bystander intervention curriculum for preventing sexual harassment. Journal of Research in Education Sciences, 63(3), 1–35. https://doi.org/10.6209/JORIES.201809_63(3).0001
50.
LiangY.ParkY. (2022). Because I know how it hurts: Employee bystander intervention in customer sexual harassment through empathy and its moderating factors. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 27(3), 339–348. https://doi.org/10.1037/ocp0000305
MadsenS. R.TownsendA.ScribnerR. T. (2020). Strategies that male allies use to advance women in the workplace. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 28(3), 239–259. https://doi.org/10.1177/1060826519883239
53.
MartinezL. R.RuggsE. N.SabatI. E.HeblM. R.BinggeliS. (2013). The role of organizational leaders in sexual orientation equality at organizational and federal levels. Journal of Business and Psychology, 28(4), 455–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-013-9293-x
54.
MatthewsM. D.EnderM. G.LaurenceJ. H.RohallD. E. (2009). Role of group affiliation and gender on attitudes toward women in the military. Military Psychology, 21(2), 241–251. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995600902768750
55.
MaxwellA. (2020). Experiences of unwanted sexualized and discriminatory behaviours and sexual assault among students at Canadian military colleges, 2019 (pp. 4–38). Juristat: Canadian Centre for Justice Statistics.
56.
McLaughlinH.UggenC.BlackstoneA. (2012). Sexual harassment, workplace authority, and the paradox of power. American Sociological Review, 77(4), 625–647. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122412451728
57.
McMahonS.AllenC. T.PostmusJ. L.McMahonS. M.PetersonN. A.Lowe HoffmanM. (2014). Measuring bystander attitudes and behavior to prevent sexual violence. Journal of American College Health, 62(1), 58–66. https://doi.org/10.1080/07448481.2013.849258
58.
MillerL. L.FarrisC.WilliamsK. M. (2018). Challenges to evaluating US military policy on sexual assault and sexual harassment. Military Psychology, 30(3), 193–205. https://doi.org/10.1080/08995605.2017.1421821
59.
MitsopoulouE.GiovazoliasT. (2015). Personality traits, empathy and bullying behavior: A meta-analytic approach. Aggression & Violent Behavior, 21, 61–72. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.avb.2015.01.007
60.
MoisucA.BrauerM.FonsecaA.ChaurandN.GreitemeyerT. (2018). Individual differences in social control: Who “speaks up” when witnessing uncivil, discriminatory, and immoral behaviours?British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(3), 524–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/bjso.12246
61.
MorralA. R.GoreK. L.SchellT. L.BickslerB.FarrisC.Ghosh-DastidarB.. . .WilliamsK. M. (2015). Sexual assault and sexual harassment in the U.S. military: Highlights from the 2014 RAND military workplace study. RAND Corporation. https://doi.org/10.7249/RB9841
62.
MoserC. E.BranscombeN. R. (2022). Male allies at work: Gender-equality supportive men reduce negative underrepresentation effects among women. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13(2), 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211033748
63.
NevilleP. (2003). ”In with the new, only more so. . .”[1]: The politics of change and gender in the Irish Naval Service. Journal of Gender Studies, 12(2), 115–124. https://doi.org/10.1080/0958923032000088319
64.
NickersonA. B.AloeA. M.LivingstonJ. A.FeeleyT. H. (2014). Measurement of the bystander intervention model for bullying and sexual harassment. Journal of Adolescence, 37(4), 391–400. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.adolescence.2014.03.003
65.
NicolA. A.CorreyaR.De FranceK. (2024). Feminist activism and ambivalent sexism’s relation with sexual harassment myths regarding women for cadets in a military college. Journal of Military Social Work and Behavioral Health Services, 12, 198–208. https://doi.org/10.1080/28367472.2024.2381007
66.
OliverA.SchneiderB. H.GalianaL.PuricelliD. A.SchwendemannM.TomásJ. M. (2022). Entrepreneurship attitudes and the Big Five: A cross-cultural comparison between Spain and the United States. Anales de Psicología/Annals of Psychology, 38(1), 119–127. https://doi.org/10.6018/analesps.459511
67.
O’MalleyM. (2015). All is not fair in love and war: An exploration of the military masculinity myth. DePaul Journal of Women, Gender and Law, 5(1), 1–40.
68.
OrchowskiL. M.BerkowitzA.OesterleD.Berry-CabánC.BorsariB.KahlerC. W.KazemiD. M. (2022). Correlates of bystander intervention attitudes and intentions among young adult active duty male soldiers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 37(23–24), NP23262–NP23280. https://doi.org/10.1177/08862605221080151
69.
RadkeH. R. M.KutlacaM.SiemB.WrightS. C.BeckerJ. C. (2020). Beyond allyship: Motivations for advantaged group members to engage in action for disadvantaged groups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 24(4), 291–315. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868320918698
70.
RammstedtB.JohnO. P. (2007). Measuring personality in one minute or less: A 10-item short version of the Big Five Inventory in English and German. Journal of Research in Personality, 41(1), 203–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jrp.2006.02.001
71.
SadlerA. G.MengelingM. A.BoothB. M.O’SheaA. M.TornerJ. C. (2017). The relationship between US military officer leadership behaviors and risk of sexual assault of reserve, national guard, and active component servicewomen in nondeployed locations. American Journal of Public Health, 107(1), 147–155.
72.
SalgadoJ. F. (2002). The Big Five personality dimensions and counterproductive behaviors. International Journal of Selection and Assessment, 10(1–2), 117–125. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2389.00198
73.
SchneiderK. T.WesselmannE. D.DeSouzaE. R. (2017). Confronting subtle workplace mistreatment: The importance of leaders as allies. Frontiers in Psychology, 8, Article 278195. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2017.01051
74.
ScullyM.RoweM. (2009). Bystander training within organizations. Journal of the International Ombudsman Association, 2(1), 1–9.
75.
SinclairS. (2021). Bystander reactions to workplace incivility: The role of gender and discrimination claims. Europe’s Journal of Psychology, 17(1), 134–144. https://doi.org/10.5964/ejop.1675
76.
SnodgrassS. E. (1992). Further effects of role versus gender on interpersonal sensitivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62(1), 154–158. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.62.1.154
77.
StanderV. A.ThomsenC. J.MerrillL. L.MilnerJ. S. (2018). Longitudinal prediction of sexual harassment and sexual assault by male enlisted Navy personnel. Military Psychology, 30(3), 229–239. https://doi.org/10.1037/mil0000171
TenbrunselA. E.ReesM. R.DiekmannK. A. (2019). Sexual harassment in academia: Ethical climates and bounded ethicality. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 245–270. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-010418-102945
80.
ThomasM. A. (2006). Sexual harassment in a residential occupation: The experiences of women seafarers. Health Education Journal, 65(2), 170–179. https://doi.org/10.1177/001789690606500207
81.
ThomasP. J. (1981). Women in the military: Gender integration at sea (No. NPRDC-TN-81-13). Naval Personnel Research and Development Center.
82.
TolorA.CramerM.D’amicoD.O’marraM. M. (1975). The effects of self-concept, trust, and imagined positive or negative self-disclosures on psychological space. The Journal of Psychology, 89(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/00223980.1975.9923902
83.
VagnoniE.LewisJ.Tajadura-JiménezA.CardiniF. (2018). Listening to a conversation with aggressive content expands the interpersonal space. PLOS ONE, 13(3), Article e0192753. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0192753
84.
van WijkC. H.FinchilescuG. (2008). Symbols of organisational culture: Describing and prescribing gender integration of navy ships. Journal of Gender Studies, 17(3), 237–249. https://doi.org/10.1080/09589230802204266
85.
WarrenM. A.BordoloiS. D.WarrenM. T. (2021). Good for the goose and good for the gander: Examining positive psychological benefits of male allyship for men and women. Psychology of Men & Masculinities, 22(4), 723–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/men0000355
86.
YoungL. M.NautaM. M. (2017). Sexism as a predictor of attitudes toward women in the military and in combat. Military Psychology, 25(2), 166–171. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0094958
87.
ZhouY.ZhengW.GaoX. (2019). The relationship between the big five and cyberbullying among college students: The mediating effect of moral disengagement. Current Psychology, 38(5), 1162–1173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12144-018-0005-6
88.
ZiobroM. (2017). African American women in the public square: Admiral Michelle Howard. In WilliamsH. V. (Ed.), Bury my heart in a free land: Black women intellectuals in modern US history (pp. 287–306). American Bibliographic Center and Clio Press.
