Objectifying media may promote sexual harassment, including harassment proclivity and harassment conduct. In the current study, we showed that objectifying media affected people’s intervention when they witnessed a harassment episode. After exposure to objectifying TV or to a control video, Italian participants (N = 126) took part in what they believed to be an employment interview that occurred by computer chat between a male interviewer and a female job applicant; participants could intervene at any time in the conversation. Participants exposed to the objectifying TV (vs. control) video were less likely to intervene and took more time before intervening in the interview in which the interviewer engaged in harassing behavior. They also reported perceiving harassment at a later stage in the interview. We discuss the role of media in creating a normative context that condones harassing behavior, and we suggest potential training programs to increase bystanders’ intervention when sexual harassment occurs.
American Psychological Association. (2007). Report of the APA task force on the sexualization of girls. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved fromwww.apa.org/pi/wpo/sexualization.html
2.
ArnettJ. J. (2002). The sounds of sex: Sex in teens’ music and music videos. In BrownJ.Walsh-ChildersK.SteeleJ. (Eds.), Sexual teens, sexual media (pp. 253–264). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
BanyardV. L. (2011). Who will help prevent sexual violence: Creating an ecological model of bystander intervention. Psychology of Violence, 1, 216–229. doi:10.1037/a0023739
5.
BarakA. (2005). Sexual harassment on the internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77–92. doi:10.1177/0894439304271540
6.
BatsonC. D.DuncanB. D.AckermanP.BuckleyT.BirchK. (1981). Is empathic emotion a source of altruistic motivation?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 290–302. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.40.2.290
7.
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, 288–306. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.16387886
8.
Bowes-SperryL.PowellG. N. (1996). Sexual harassment as a moral issue: An ethical decision-making perspective. In StockdaleM. S. (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace (Vol. 5, pp. 105–124). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. doi:10.4135/9781483327280.n6
9.
Bowes-SperryL.PowellG. N. (1999). Observers’ reactions to social-sexual behavior at work: An ethical decision making perspective. Journal of Management, 25, 779–802. doi:10.1177/014920639902500601
10.
BrandtM. J. (2013). Do the disadvantaged legitimize the social system? A large-scale test of the status-legitimacy hypothesis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 765–785. doi:10.1037/a0031751
11.
CalogeroR. M. (2013). Objects don’t object. Evidence that self-objectification disrupts women’s social activism. Psychological Science, 24, 312–318. doi:10.1177/0956797612452574
12.
CalogeroR. M.TylkaT. L. (2014). Sanctioning resistance to sexual objectification: An integrative system justification perspective. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 763–778. doi:10.1111/josi.12090
13.
CialdiniR. B.TrostM. R. (1998). Social influence: Social norms, conformity, and compliance. In GilbertD. T.FiskeS. T.LindzeyG. (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 151–192). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
14.
ClarkR. D.WordL. E. (1974). Where is the apathetic bystander? Situational characteristics of the emergency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 29, 279–287. doi:10.1037/h0036000
15.
CropanzanoR.GoldmanB.FolgerR. (2003). Deontic justice: The role of moral principles in workplace fairness. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 1019–1024. doi:10.1002/job.228
16.
CropanzanoR.GoldmanB.FolgerR. (2005). Self-interest: Defining and understanding a human motive. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 26, 985–991. doi:10.1002/job.353
17.
EatonC. (1997). Prime-time stereotyping on the new television networks. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 74, 859–872. doi:10.1177/107769909707400413
18.
FischerP.KruegerJ. I.GreitemeyerT.VogrincicC.KastenmüllerA.FreyD.…KainbacherM. (2011). The bystander-effect: A meta-analytic review on bystander intervention in dangerous and non-dangerous emergencies. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 517–537. doi:10.1037/a0023304
19.
FitzgeraldL. F.GelfandM.DrasgowF. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425–445. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1704_2
20.
FitzgeraldL. F.SwanS.MagleyV. J. (1997). But was it really sexual harassment? Legal, behavioral, and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In O’DonohueW. (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5–28). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
21.
FolgerR. (2001). Fairness as deonance. In GillilandS. W.SteinerD. D.SkarlickiD. P. (Eds.), Research in social issues in management (pp. 3–31). Charlotte, NC: Information Age.
22.
FoutsG.BurggrafK. (2000). Television situation comedies: Female weight, male negative comments, and audience reactions. Sex Roles, 42, 925–932. doi:10.1023/A:1007054618340
23.
FredricksonB.RobertsT. A. (1997). Objectification theory: Toward understanding women’s lived experiences and mental health risks. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 173–206. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00108.x
24.
GaldiS.MaassA.CadinuM. (2014). Objectifying media: Their effect on gender role norms and sexual harassment of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 38, 398–413. doi:10.1177/0361684313515185
25.
GewinV. (2015). Surveys of sexual harassment and assault during field research and on campus reveal a hitherto secret problem. Nature, 519, 251–253. doi:10.1038/nj7542-251a
26.
GillR.MathesonK. (2006). Responses to discrimination: The role of emotion and expectations for emotional regulation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 149–161. doi:10.1177/0146167205279906
27.
GlascockJ. (2001). Gender roles on prime-time network television: Demographics and behaviors. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 45, 656–669. doi:10.1207/s15506878jobem4504_7
28.
GlombT. M.RichmanW. L.HulinC. L.DrasgowF.SchneiderK. T.FitzgeraldL. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309–328. doi:10.1006/obhd.1997.2728
29.
Gray-LittleB.WilliamsV. S. L.HancockT. D. (1997). An item response theory analysis of the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulettin, 23, 443–451. doi: 10.1177/0146167297235001
30.
GreitemeyerT.FischerP.KastenmüllerA.FreyD. (2006). Civil courage and helping behaviour: Differences and similarities. European Psychologist, 11, 90–98. doi:10.1027/1016-9040.11.2.90
31.
GreitemeyerT.OsswaldS.FischerP.FreyD. (2007). Civil courage: Implicit theories, related concepts, and measurement. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 2, 115–119. doi:10.1080/17439760701228789
32.
GuizzoF.CadinuM.GaldiS.MaassA.LatrofaM. (2017). Objecting to objectification: Women’s collective action against sexual objectification on television. Sex Roles. doi:10.1007/s11199-016-0725-8
33.
HansenC. H.HansenR. (1988). How rock music videos can change what is seen when boy meets girl: Priming stereotypic appraisal of social interactions. Sex Roles, 19, 287–316. doi:10.1007/BF00289839
34.
HarariH.HarariO.WhiteR. V. (1985). The reaction to rape by American male bystanders. Journal of Social Psychology, 125, 653–658. doi:10.1080/00224545.1985.9712039
35.
Harmon-JonesE.AmodioD. M.ZinnerL. R. (2007). Social psychological methods of emotion elicitation. In CoanJ. A.AllenJ. J. B. (Eds.), Handbook of emotion elicitation and assessment (pp. 91–105). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
36.
Hesson-McInnisM. S.FitzgeraldL. F. (1997). Sexual harassment: A preliminary test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 877–901. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1997.tb00276.x
37.
HitlanR. T.SchneiderK. T.WalshB. M. (2006). Upsetting behavior: Reactions to personal and bystander sexual harassment experiences. Sex Roles, 55, 187–195. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9072-5
38.
HoeppnerB. B.KellyJ. F.UrbanoskiK. A.SlaymakerV. (2011). Comparative utility of a single-item versus multiple-item measure of self-efficacy in predicting relapse among young adults. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 41, 305–312. doi:10.1016/j.jsat.2011.04.005
39.
JonasK.BrandstaetterV. (2004). Zivilcourage. Definition, befunde, maflnahmen [Moral courage. Definition, findings, and interventions]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 35, 185–200. doi:10.1024/0044-3514.35.4.185
40.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R. (1994). The role of stereotyping in system justification and the production of false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1–27. doi:10.1111/j.2044-8309.1994.tb01008.x
41.
JostJ. T.PelhamB. W.SheldonO.SulivanB. N. (2003). Social inequality and the reduction of ideological dissonance on behalf of the system: Evidence of enhanced system justification among the disadvantaged. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 13–36. doi:10.1002/ejsp.127
42.
KastenmüllerA.GreitemeyerT.FischerP.FreyD. (2007). Das münchner zivilcourage-instrument (MüZi): Entwicklung und validierung [The Munich civil courage instrument: Development and validation]. Diagnostica, 53, 205–217. doi:10.1026/0012-1924.53.4.205
43.
LamertzK. (2002). The social construction of fairness: Social influence and sense making in organizations. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 19–37. doi:10.1002/job.128
44.
LampmanC.Rolfe-MaloneyB.DavidE. J.YanM.McDermottN.WintersS.…LathropR. (2002). Messages about sex in the workplace: A content analysis of prime-time television. Sexuality & Culture, 6, 3–23. doi:10.1007/BF02719213
45.
LatanéB.DarleyJ. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?New York, NY: Appleton-Century-Crofts.
46.
LeskinenE. A.CortinaL. M.KabatD. B. (2011). Gender harassment: Broadening our understanding of sex-based harassment at work. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 25–39. doi:10.1007/s10979-010-9241-5
47.
LevineM.ProsserA.EvansD.ReicherS. (2002). Self-categorization and bystander non-intervention: Two experimental studies. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 32, 1452–1463. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.2002.tb01446.x
48.
LevineM.ProsserA.EvansD.ReicherS. (2005). Identity and emergency intervention: How social group membership and inclusiveness of group boundaries shape helping behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 443–453. doi:10.1177/0146167204271651
49.
LooR. (2002). A caveat on using single-item versus multiple-item scales. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 17, 68–75. doi:10.1108/02683940210415933
50.
LopezS. J.O’ByrneK. K.PetersonS. (2003). Profiling courage. In LopezS. J.SnyderC. R. (Eds.), Positive psychological assessment: A handbook of models and measures (pp. 185–197). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
51.
Miner-RubinoK.CortinaL. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward women: Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 107–122. doi:10.1037/1076-8998.9.2.107
52.
Miner-RubinoK.CortinaL. M. (2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1254–1269. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.92.5.1254.
53.
NiestaD.GreitemeyerT.FischerP.FreyD. (2010). Why mood affects help giving but not moral courage: Two types of prosocial behaviours. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 1136–1157. doi:10.1002/ejsp.717
O’Leary-KellyA. M.Bowes-SperryL. (2001). Sexual harassment as unethical behavior: The role of moral intensity. Human Resource Management Review, 11, 73–92. doi:10.1016/S1053-4822(00)00041-3
56.
O’Leary-KellyA. M.PaetzoldR. L.GriffinR. W. (2000). Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor-based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25, 372–388. doi:10.5465/AMR.2000.3312924
57.
OsswaldS.FreyD.GreitemeyerT.FischerP. (2007). Erarbeitung eines prozessmodells für zivilcourage [Development of a process model for moral courage]. In FrankenbergerR.FrechS.GrimmD. (Eds.), Politische psychologie und politische bildung-analysen, konzepte und praxisberichte (pp. 114–138). Schwalbach, Germany: Wochenschau.
58.
OsswaldS.GreitemeyerT.FischerP.FreyD. (2010). What is moral courage? Definition, and classification of a complex construct. In PuryC.LopezS. (Eds.), The psychology of courage: Modern research on an ancient virtue (pp. 94–120). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/12168-008
59.
PaulP. (2005). Pornified: How pornography is transforming our lives, our relationships, and our families. New York, NY: Times Books.
60.
PostmesT.HaslamS. A.JansL. (2013). A single-item measure of social identification: Reliability, validity, and utility. British Journal of Social Psychology, 52, 597–617. doi:10.1111/bjso.12006
61.
PryorJ. B.FitzgeraldL. F. (2003). Sexual harassment research in the United States. In EinarsenS.HoelH.ZapfD.CooperC. (Eds.), Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 79–100). London, England: Taylor & Francis.
62.
RaverJ. L.GelfandM. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48, 387–400. doi:10.5465/AMJ.2005.17407904
63.
ReichT. C.HershcovisM S. (2015). Observing workplace incivility. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100, 203–215. doi:10.1037/a0036464
64.
ReichertT.CarpenterC. (2004). An update on sex in magazine advertising: 1983 to 2003. Journalism and Mass Communication Quarterly, 81, 823–837. doi:10.1177/107769900408100407
65.
RobinsR. W.HendinH. M.TrzesniewskiK. H. (2001). Measuring global self-esteem: Construct validation of a single-item measure and the Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 151–161. doi:10.1177/0146167201272002
66.
RosenbergM. (1965). Society and the adolescent child. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
67.
RotundoM.NguyenD. H.SackettP. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.914
68.
RudmanL. A.BorgidaE. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493–517. doi:10.1006/jesp.1995.1022
SignorielliN.BacueA. (1999). Recognition and respect: A content analysis of prime-time television characters across three decades. Sex Roles, 40, 527–544. doi:10.1023/A:1018883912900
71.
SkarlickiD. P.RuppD. E. (2010). Dual processing and organizational justice: The role of rational versus experiential processing in third-party reactions to workplace mistreatment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 95, 944–952. doi:10.1037/a0020468
72.
StankiewiczJ. M.RoselliF. (2008). Women as sex objects and victims in print advertisements. Sex Roles, 58, 579–589. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9359 -1
73.
TurilloC. J.FolgerR.LavelleJ. J.UmphressE.GeeJ. (2002). Is virtue its own reward? Self-sacrificial decisions for the sake of fairness. Organizational Behavior and Human Decisions Processes, 89, 839–865. doi:10.1016/S0749-5978(02)00032-8
74.
WardL. M. (1995). Talking about sex: Common themes about sexuality in the prime-time television programs children and adolescents view most. Journal of Youth Adolescence, 24, 595–615. doi:10.1007/BF01537058
75.
ZanardoL. (2010). Il corpo delle donne [Women’s bodies]. Milano, Italy: Feltrinelli.
