Bystander intervention is a powerful response to sexual harassment that reduces victims’ burden to respond. However, gender prototypes depicting sexual harassment victims as prototypical women (i.e., stereotypically feminine) may hinder intervention when harassment targets women who deviate from this prototype. Across four preregistered experiments (N = 1,270 Americans), we test whether bystanders intervene less readily in nonprototypical (vs. prototypical) women’s sexual harassment. Participants observed a man manager ask a series of increasingly sexually harassing job interview questions toward either a gender prototypical or nonprototypical woman by traits (Studies 1–3) or gender identity (Study 4). Participants were instructed to intervene to stop the interview if/when they judged the questions as inappropriate. A meta-analysis revealed participants had a greater threshold for intervention when harassment targeted a nonprototypical (vs. prototypical) woman—a small but meaningful effect. Efforts to foster bystander intervention in sexual harassment would benefit by recognizing this neglect of nonprototypical women.
Ashburn-NardoL.MorrisK. A.GoodwinS. A. (2008). The confronting prejudiced responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management Learning & Education, 7(3), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251671
BergmanM. E.LanghoutR. D.PalmieriP. A.CortinaL. M.FitzgeraldL. F. (2002). The (un) reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87(2), 230–242. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.87.2.230
4.
BrasselS. T.SettlesI. H.BuchananN. T. (2019). Lay (mis) perceptions of sexual harassment toward transgender, lesbian, and gay employees. Sex Roles, 80, 76–90. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-018-0914-8
CassinoD. (2018, February21). Sexual harassment claims have fallen among young white women, but not older women or black women. Harvard Business Review.
8.
ChampelyS.EkstromC.DalgaardP.GillJ.WeibelzahlS.AnandkumarA.FordC.VolcicR.De RosarioH. (2017). pwr: Basic functions for power analysis [Computer software]. https://cran.r-project.org/web/packages/pwr/
9.
ChanD. K.ChowS. Y.LamC. B.CheungS. F. (2008). Examining the job-related, psychological, and physical outcomes of workplace sexual harassment: A meta-analytic review. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(4), 362–376. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2008.00451.x
10.
CihangirS.BarretoM.EllemersN. (2014). Men as allies against sexism: The positive effects of a suggestion of sexism by male (vs. female) sources. Sage Open, 4(2), 2158244014539168. https://doi.org/10.1177/2158244014539168
11.
ClarkeJ. A. (2013). Inferring desire. Dukeminier Awards: Best Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity Law Review, 14, 525–635.
12.
CortinaL. M.MagleyV. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8(4), 247–265. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.8.4.247
13.
CrenshawK. (1991). Race, gender, and sexual harassment. Southern California Law Review, 65(3), 1467–1476.
14.
CrenshawK. (2019). We still have not learned from Anita Hill’s testimony. UCLA Women’s Law Journal, 26(1), 17–20.
15.
CzoppA. M.MonteithM. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29(4), 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250923
16.
DannaG. C.HernandezJ.MahabirB.NandigamaD.CheungH. K. (2020). Who else besides (White) women? The need for representation in harassment training. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 13(2), 208–212. http://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.38
17.
DiekmanA. B.EaglyA. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26(10), 1171–1188. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001
DobbinF.KalevA. (2019). The promise and peril of sexual harassment programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(25), 12255–12260. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.181847711
20.
DobbinF.KalevA. (2020). Making discrimination and harassment complaint systems better. In PedullaD. (Ed.), What works? Evidence-based ideas to increase diversity, equity, and inclusion in the workplace (pp. 24–29). Radcliffe Institute for Advanced Study.
21.
DruryB. J.KaiserC. R. (2014). Allies against sexism: The role of men in confronting sexism. Journal of Social Issues, 70(4), 637–652. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12083
Estevan-ReinaL.de LemusS.MegíasJ. L. (2020). Feminist or paternalistic: Understanding men’s motivations to confront sexism. Frontiers in Psychology, 10, Article 2988. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2019.02988
24.
FitzgeraldL. F. (2017). Still the last great open secret: Sexual harassment as systemic trauma. Journal of Trauma & Dissociation, 18(4), 483–489. https://doi.org/10.1080/15299732.2017.1309143
25.
FitzgeraldL. F.CortinaL. M. (2018). Sexual harassment in work organizations: A view from the 21st century. In TravisC. BWhiteJ. W.RutherfordA.WilliamsW. S.CookS. L.WycheK. F. (Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology of women: Perspectives on women’s private and public lives (pp. 215–234). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000060-012
GallagherN. M.BodenhausenG. V. (2021). Gender essentialism and the mental representation of transgender women and men: A multimethod investigation of stereotype content. Cognition, 217, Article 104887. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2021.104887
28.
GervaisS. J.HillardA. L.VescioT. K. (2010). Confronting sexism: The role of relationship orientation and gender. Sex Roles, 63, 463–474. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-010-9838-7
29.
GlickP.FiskeS. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56(2), 109–118. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.56.2.109
30.
GohJ. X.Bandt-LawB.CheekN. N.SinclairS.KaiserC. R. (2022). Narrow prototypes and neglected victims: Understanding perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 122(5), 873–893. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000260
31.
GoodJ. J.Moss-RacusinC. A.SanchezD. T. (2012). When do we confront? Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36(2), 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312440958
32.
GulkerJ. E.MarkA. Y.MonteithM. J. (2013). Confronting prejudice: The who, what, and why of confrontation effectiveness. Social Influence, 8(4), 280–293. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510.2012.736879
33.
HelgesonV. S. (1994). Prototypes and dimensions of masculinity and femininity. Sex Roles, 31, 653–682. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01544286
34.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThomasJ.ChandlerJ.CumpstonM.LiT.PageM. J.WelchV. A. (Eds.). (2022). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 6.3. Cochrane. http://www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
35.
HildebrandL. K.JusufC. C.MonteithM. J. (2020). Ally confrontations as identity-safety cues for marginalized individuals. European Journal of Social Psychology, 50(6), 1318–1333. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2692
36.
IliesR.HausermanN.SchwochauS.StibalJ. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56(3), 607–631. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2003.tb00752.x
KaiserC. R.Bandt-LawB.CheekN. N.SchachtmanR. (2022). Gender prototypes shape perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 31(3), 254–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721422107859
39.
KaiserC. R.MajorB. (2006). A social psychological perspective on perceiving and reporting discrimination. Law & Social Inquiry, 31(4), 801–830. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1747-4469.2006.00036.x
40.
KaltialaR.EllonenN. (2022). Transgender identity and experiences of sexual harassment in adolescence. Child Abuse Review, 31(4), Article e2748. https://doi.org/10.1002/car.2748
41.
LatanéB.DarleyJ. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help. Appleton-Century-Crofts.
42.
LeeS. Y.HansonM. D.CheungH. K. (2019). Incorporating bystander intervention into sexual harassment training. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 12(1), 52–57. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2019.8
43.
LeskinenE. A.CortinaL. M.KabatD. B. (2011). Gender harassment: Broadening our understanding of sex-based harassment at work. Law and Human Behavior, 35(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9241-5
44.
LeskinenE. A.RabeloV. C.CortinaL. M. (2015). Gender stereotyping and harassment: A “catch-22” for women in the workplace. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 21(2), 192–204. https://doi.org/10.1037/law0000040
45.
MacKinnonC. A. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex discrimination (Vol. 19). Yale University Press.
MajorB.QuintonW. J.McCoyS. K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In ZannaM. P. (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 34, pp. 251–330). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065-2601(02)80007-7
48.
MallettR. K.FordT. E.WoodzickaJ. A. (2021). Ignoring sexism increases women’s tolerance of sexual harassment. Self and Identity, 20(7), 913–929. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2019.1678519
49.
McDonaldP.CharlesworthS.GrahamT. (2016). Action or inaction: Bystander intervention in workplace sexual harassment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 27(5), 548–566. https://doi.org/10.1080/09585192.2015.1023331
50.
MilgramS. (1963). Behavioral study of obedience. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(4), 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525
51.
MoserC. E.BranscombeN. R. (2021). Male allies at work: Gender-equality supportive men reduce negative underrepresentation effects among women. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 13, 372–381. https://doi.org/10.1177/19485506211033748
52.
O’Leary-KellyA. M.PaetzoldR. L.GriffinR. W. (2000). Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25(2), 372–388. https://doi.org/10.2307/259019
53.
PaganiniG. A.McConnellA. A.DeskaJ. C.AlmarazS. M.HugenbergK.LloydE. P. (2023). Waist-to-hip ratio predicts sexual perception and responses to sexual assault disclosures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672221148008
54.
PrenticeD. A.CarranzaE. (2002). What women and men should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: The contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26(4), 269–281. https://doi.org/10.1111/1471-6402.t01-1-00066
55.
Purdie-VaughnsV.EibachR. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59(5), 377–391. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9424-4
56.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/
57.
SheltonJ. N.StewartR. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28(3), 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00138.x
58.
SojoV. E.WoodR. E.GenatA. E. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and women’s occupational well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 10–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315599346
59.
SwimJ. K.HyersL. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?!: Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35(1), 68–88. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1370
60.
TingleyD.YamamotoT.HiroseK.KeeleL.ImaiK. (2014). Mediation: R package for causal mediation analysis. Journal of Statistical Software, 59(5), 1–38. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i05
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v036.i03
63.
WellsG. L.WindschitlP. D. (1999). Stimulus sampling and social psychological experimentation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(9), 1115–1125. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672992512005
64.
WillnessC. R.SteelP.LeeK. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 127–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x
WoodzickaJ. A.LaFranceM. (2005). The effects of subtle sexual harassment on women’s performance in a job interview. Sex Roles, 53(1), 67–77. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-005-4279-4
67.
ZidenbergA. M.SparksB.HarkinsL.LidstoneS. K. (2021). Tipping the scales: Effects of gender, rape myth acceptance, and anti-fat attitudes on judgments of sexual coercion scenarios. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 36, NP10178–NP10204. https://doi.org/10.1177/0886260519872978
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
