Part 2: Sexual harassment from the perspective of bystanders

Encourage. Support. Act!

Bystander Approaches to Sexual Harassment in the Workplace



Part 2: Sexual harassment from the perspective of bystanders

How do individuals who witness or are aware of sexual harassment in their workplace make sense of this? Referred to in some studies as ambient sexual harassment, the vicarious experience of sexual harassment by bystanders has been explored from a number of perspectives. This section describes the prevalence of the experience, the psychological and productivity impacts and perceptual differences across demographic groups.

2.1 Witnesses to sexual harassment

Research suggests that substantial proportions of employees, even a majority, directly or indirectly witness sexual harassment at work. In one US study, more than 70 percent of women reported observing the sexual harassment of other women in their work environments.[91] Rather more conservatively, the Commission’s prevalence survey on sexual harassment in 2008 reported that around 12 percent of the 2005 respondents surveyed (N = 240) reported they had witnessed[92] sexual harassment in the workplace in the last five years. Furthermore, in this survey nearly one in four respondents who had experienced sexual harassment had also witnessed sexual harassment. High rates of bystanding have also been demonstrated in other areas of harassment. In one study, bystander experiences of racial harassment were commonplace occurrences and were as frequent as personal encounters with racial harassment.[93] Employees are also frequently aware of who among their male co-workers harasses female employees and know when a harassment complaint has been made and is being investigated.[94]

The extent to which individuals are bystanders to workplace sexual harassment is influenced by the incidence of harassment itself across workplaces. Another finding from the Commission’s prevalence survey[95] suggested that sexual harassment may cluster in certain workplaces, with around 70 percent of those who stated they had experienced sexual harassment also reporting that it occurred ‘commonly’ or ‘sometimes’ in their workplace. It is uncertain whether the co-occurrence was more related to a single perpetrator who harassed multiple targets, or alternatively, whether sexual harassment was perpetrated by multiple harassers in the same workplace. The ‘clustering’ of sexual harassment in particular workplaces warrants further research attention, especially as it may offer a crucial vantage point from which to examine bystander approaches. However, in workplace cultures in which gendered hostility and incivility is rife, exploring bystander approaches may be complicated by the fact that bystanders might sequentially or simultaneously also experience sexual harassment as a direct target.

Frequent witnessing of sexual harassment, particularly where action may not be taken by an employer to prevent or remedy it, may be an indicator of a workplace culture that tolerates or does not adequately respond to sexual harassment.[96] The number of employees who witness sexual harassment is an important marker for organisations because employee perceptions of the organisation’s tolerance of harassment have more influence on the attitudes and behaviours of employees than the existence of formal rules and regulations, regardless of organisational sex ratios.[97]

2.2 Psychological and social impacts on bystanders

There is a growing recognition that even observing or hearing about the sexual harassment of co-workers can foster bystander stress[98] and other negative outcomes that parallel those experienced by the direct targets of harassment.[99] Such outcomes include reduced health satisfaction, team conflict, declines in financial performance, occupational stress and job withdrawal.[100] Stress experienced by observer and non-observer bystanders has also been demonstrated in a range of other areas. Examples include healthcare workers who hear about traumatic events experienced by patients,[101] community members’ responses to widely broadcast catastrophes such as the 9/11 terrorist attacks and Challenger explosion,[102] and youths who have witnessed frequent acts of violence.[103] Studies of both sexual harassment and racial harassment reveal that employees who are victims of direct harassment and who are also aware of their co-workers’ harassment, suffer the equivalent of a ‘double whammy’, with negative occupational, psychological and health-related outcomes over and above the effects of their personal experiences.[104]

It is important to note that observing or even perceiving men’s mistreatment of women affects not only targets themselves and other women, but also men. Although theoretical explanations for this are under-developed, possible explanations around either self-interest, or genuine concern for women, have been proposed. The self-interest perspective suggests that men may show declines in well-being because they are afraid of being personally blamed or concerned that they will be perceived as offensive or harassing.[105] The genuine concern view suggests that men may feel empathy or compassion when they observe or hear about the mistreatment of a close female colleague.[106] This would be consistent with a more general explanation of bystander stress which suggests that hearing about negative events provokes distress through an ‘other-oriented’ emotional response, diffusing among individuals occupying the same environment.[107] Similarly, the concept of oneness has been used to describe a self-other overlap which predicates feelings of empathetic concern and determines direct helping.[108] The concept of oneness has been extended to understanding how bystanders are influenced by other bystanders to the degree that they are in-group rather than out-group members. This issue is discussed further in Part 3.

Complicating issues of the impacts of sexual conduct in the workplace on bystanders is that there is convincing data showing that exposure to such behaviour can still have negative impacts even if it is not unwelcome or unwanted. Examples include a co-worker who sees or hears other employees engaged in sexual banter or crude behaviours where there is a degree of reciprocity, or where the target returns the behaviour or remarks with more of the same.[109]

2.3 Differences in perceptions of sexual harassment

A large body of research has addressed the way in which behaviours which may constitute sexual harassment are perceived by those witnessing them or being informed of them.[110] Generating an understanding of the differences in bystanders’ perceptions of sexual harassment can help us to:

  • Understand at what threshold bystanders in different demographic categories will believe that sexual harassment has occurred and consequently, when they might be likely to intervene or otherwise respond;
  • Design interventions and policies to reduce the general level of acceptance of workplace sexual harassment and the degree of ambiguity that often exists around sexual conduct in the workplace beyond extreme cases;[111] and
  • Develop effective training programs and grievance procedures which may harness the potential for bystander interventions to prevent workplace harm.

Research exploring perceptions of sexual harassment has focused attention on such factors as the gender of the bystander (also referred to as an observer), the gender of the target, the seniority of the target/harasser, the characteristics of the behaviour involved and the nature of response from the target. Other, less frequently examined perceptual differences have been explored on the basis of the race/culture of the observer/target, whether the harassment was cross- or same-sex, the past experiences of the observer and target, target and harasser attractiveness and whether there was a history of a workplace romance. A selection of these extensive research findings follows.

One of the most robust and stable conclusions relating to perceptions of sexual harassment is that women are less accepting than men of sexual behaviour at work and view gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention and sexual coercion as more serious.[112] Importantly however, meta-analyses reveal that while women conceive of a broader range of behaviours as constituting sexual harassment than men, these differences are relatively small[113] and appear to depend on the severity of the perpetrator’s actions.[114] Overall, potentially harassing behaviours are not perceived as harassment by either men or women until they become more severe, even if they are frequent.[115] That is, women and men show more perceptual similarities when the attention is verbal, ambiguous, or less frequent.[116] These findings are further complicated by reported differences in perceptions related to the gender of the target and the status of the harasser. For example, men and women are more likely to agree that conduct is sexual harassment when the perpetrator is a supervisor rather than a peer or co-worker.[117] Observers also perceive targets as more credible, view the harasser as more responsible and are more likely to believe that the harassment has actually occurred, when the target reports the behaviour immediately rather than months later.[118]

Women, more than men, also reject a range of ‘myths’ associated with sexual harassment. These myths include the idea that women fabricate or exaggerate the problem, women have ulterior motives for reporting sexual harassment and sexual harassment is women’s own responsibility.[119] Women, compared to men, also attribute more responsibility to harassers and less responsibility to targets,[120] are less likely to blame the victims of sexual harassment,[121] recommend more severe punishments for harassers[122] and are more likely to favour compensating female targets.[123] For example, one study showed that female personnel managers who had sexual harassment reported to them were more likely to take reconciliatory measures or transfer either party, while male personnel managers were more likely to avoid taking any measures.[124]

This persistent gender gap in perceptions of sexual harassment is shaped by men’s and women’s understandings of gender in general. As with attitudes towards domestic and sexual violence, individuals who support traditional gender roles and relations are more likely to express attitudes tolerant of sexual harassment.[125] Among men in particular, traditional views of men’s and gender roles are related to attitudes conducive to the sexual harassment of women.[126]

Both male and female observers are more likely to say sexual harassment has occurred when there is a clear indication that the behaviours are unwelcome, such as assertive responses from the target.[127] In contrast, targets who acquiesce are seen, particularly by other women, as more responsible for the sexual harassment.[128] This victim-blaming tendency triggered by a submissive complainant is also evident in research on rape and suggests that observers place a disproportionate amount of focus on a target of violence.[129] One explanation of victim-blaming is that when targets respond passively, this creates the misperception that the conduct has few serious or immediate consequences which is therefore associated with a low moral intensity or imperative.[130] On the other hand, if the attention continues following the resistance, this seems to clarify for observers that harassment has occurred.[131] Another factor which occurs after the conduct and which is relevant to bystander perceptions is harassers’ explanations for their behaviour. Outright denials of their behaviour by harassers have been found to be a very effective method for minimising the seriousness of the conduct in the eyes of observers and more so than other explanations offered by harassers such as excuses, justifications and concessions.[132]

Research findings with respect to the credibility of the target according to their gender and other characteristics have been somewhat mixed. Jones and Remland[133] found that individuals were less tolerant of sexual harassment when the target was female rather than male. Other studies have similarly found that men who complain of sexual harassment are believed less, liked less and punished more than women who complain.[134] An explanation for this is that schema-driven expectancies of observers lead to negative evaluations of individuals who do not conform to expected gender roles.[135] That is, men who report sexual harassment may be seen to violate expectations of what men usually do and are consequently disbelieved or criticised. However, other research has concluded that individuals are less tolerant of sexual harassment when the target is a male[136] or that there are no perceptual distinctions based on the gender of targets.[137]

The tendency to believe and like female complainants is stronger when complainants are physically attractive[138] and equally, married men or unattractive men are more likely to be seen as harassers.[139] This is presumably because perceptions of harassment are premised in part on commonplace stereotypes about romance and men who are married or unattractive may be perceived as less likely to have a genuine romantic interest in the target. Finally, some research suggests that perpetrators of same-sex harassment are evaluated more negatively than are those of other-sex harassment.[140]

2.4 What bystanders do when they observe or are informed of sexual harassment

Bystanders, whether witnessing or learning of sexual harassment, may enact a range of responses. They may provide social guidance which can influence whether targets report the problem or make a formal legal claim,[141] or they may initiate a formal organisational response themselves, or they may intervene during an incident or later confront the harasser.[142] In the Commission’s 2008 sexual harassment prevalence survey[143], the large majority of witnesses took some form of action in response to the harassment, such as talking to or listening to the target (78.4%) or offering advice to the target (80.7%). Furthermore, around one in three (35%) witnesses to sexual harassment made a formal report to their employer and one in three (36.4%) confronted the harasser. Indeed, the proportion of bystanders who took action (around one-third) was more than twice the number of targets who personally made a formal report to their organisations (16%). These results suggest that witnesses, compared to targets, may be less concerned than targets themselves about potential backlash or personal or occupational reprisals if they report sexual harassment in an advocate role. However, this conclusion is tentative, especially in light of strong evidence reported in Part 3 below suggesting that whistle blowers are frequently victimised.

A qualitative study of three contrasting organisational contexts in a small town in New Zealand also found evidence of groups of women – targets and bystanders – collectively developing a range of unified strategies for containing individual and systemic harassment.[144] However, their ability to do this was dependent on the organisational environment in which they worked and shaped by the type of harassment. In one of the case studies in the New Zealand study – in a meat processing plant – sexism was endemic and deeply entrenched in the attitudes and practices of both management and the predominantly male workforce. In this environment, women rarely made collective complaints to management, perceiving that they were generally unsupportive of women and tolerant of structural barriers which impeded women’s careers. These women were so divided, demoralised and concerned with their own daily survival that they had few effective means of changing their situation.[145]

However, there were contrasting solidarity strategies used in the two comparative case studies of a retail store and a bank, where male staff and customers were in the minority and acted in isolation. In these environments, women used strategies such as ensuring there was a witness present when they dealt with certain male staff and customers and avoiding particular customers who were known to engage frequently in harassing behaviour. These strategies of avoiding known harassers included taking lunch hours at strategic times, leaving the counter or work station and asking other staff to cover for them while they retreated to the back office and pre-arranging to be interrupted by phone calls when a confrontation was likely to occur.[146]

Another qualitative study exploring the sexual politics of a large gem mine in remote Australia documented that women were being systematically subjected to a range of offensive behaviours. A group of women organised a series of advertised, women-only meetings held at the mine itself and, in response to a ‘re-papering of walls and ceiling with pornographic pictures’, initiated the formation of an ‘Offensive Materials Committee’ to gain a broad-based negotiated agreement for the removal of the pin-ups.[147] They also collectively approached their state’s Equal Opportunity Commissioner who subsequently visited the mine-site and gave advice about sexual harassment, pin-ups and sex discrimination and ensured that programs on sexism and sexual harassment were run.[148] These examples of collective responses to sexual harassment and gender maltreatment by those who both experienced and witnessed sexual harassment constituted a form of democratic participation aimed at resisting the manipulation of women’s gendered identities.

In certain cases, bystanders may only respond to sexual harassment after the incidents have escalated, become public or progressed to court proceedings. In court, the provision of corroborating evidence by witnesses or bystanders also appears to play a critical role in the success of legal cases in sexual harassment. In a recent study of 23 Australian judicial decisions, nine of the 10 cases that were unsuccessful contained statements from the judge making mention of a lack of corroborating evidence to rebut the alleged harasser’s denial or reinterpretation of what had happened.[149]


[91] R Hitlan, K Schneider and A Estrada, Reactions to personal and bystander sexual harassment experiences (2002). Paper presented at the Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.

[92] The use of the term ‘witness’ in the Commission’s 2008 survey may under-estimate the number of bystanders involved in sexual harassment because the word implies direct observation of the behaviours. This is in contrast to the broader definition of bystanders adopted here which also includes individuals who are informed of sexual harassment which occurs in their workplaces but who may not directly witness it.

[93] K Low, P Radhakrishnan, K Schneider and J Rounds, ‘The experiences of bystanders of workplace ethnic harassment’ (2007) 37(10) Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 2261-2297.

[94] T Glomb, W Tichman, C Hulin, F Drasgow, K Schneider and L Fitzgerald, ‘Ambient sexual harassment: an integrated model of antecedents and consequences (1997) 71 Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, pp. 309-328; B Gutek, Sex and the Workplace (1985).

[95] Australian Human Rights Commission, Sexual Harassment: Serious Business. Results of the 2008 Sexual Harassment National Telephone Survey (2008).

[96] Australian Human Rights Commission, Sexual Harassment: Serious Business. Results of the 2008 Sexual Harassment National Telephone Survey (2008).

[97] J Handy, ‘Sexual harassment in small-town New Zealand: a qualitative study of three contrasting organizations’ (2006) 13(1) Gender, Work & Organization, pp. 1-24; C Hulin, L Fitzgerald and F Drasgow, ‘Organizational Influences on Sexual Harassment’ in M Stockdale (ed), Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Perspectives, Frontiers and Response Strategies (1996) pp. 127-150; J B Pryor, J L Giedd and K B Williams, ‘A social psychological model for predicting sexual harassment’ (1995) Journal of Social Issues 51(1), pp. 53-68; L Rosen and L Martin, ‘Incidence and perceptions of sexual harassment among male and female U.S. Army soldiers’ (1998) 10 Military Psychology, pp. 239-257; G Timmerman and C Bajema, ‘Incidence and methodology in sexual harassment research in northwest Europe’ (1999) 22(6) Women’s Studies International Forum, pp. 673–681.

[98] K Schneider, ‘Bystander Stress: Effects of Sexual Harassment on Victims’ Co-workers’. Paper presented at the 104th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, August 9-13 (1996).

[99] K Miner-Rubino and L Cortina, ‘Beyond targets: consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work’ (2007) 92(5) Journal of Applied Psychology, pp.1254-1269.

[100] K Miner-Rubino and L Cortina, ‘Working in a context of hostility toward women: implications for employees’ well-being’ (2004) 9 Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, pp. 107-122; J Raver and M Gelfand, ‘Beyond the individual victim: linking sexual harassment, team processes and team performance’ (2005) 48 Academy of Management Journal, pp. 387-400.

[101] C Figley, Compassion Fatigue: Coping with Secondary Traumatic Stress Disorder in those who Treat the Traumatized (1995).

[102] M Schuster, B Stein, L Jaycox, R Collins, G Marshall and M Elliot, ‘A national survey of stress reactions after the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks’ (2002) 345 New England Journal of Medicine, pp. 1507-1512.

[103] M Berton and S Stabb, ‘Exposure to violence and post-traumatic stress disorder in urban adolescents’ (1996) 31 Adolescence, pp. 489-498.

[104] T Glomb, W Tichman, C Hulin, F Drasgow, K Schneider and L Fitzgerald, ‘Ambient sexual harassment: an integrated model of antecedents and consequences (1997) 71 Organizational Behavior & Human Decision Processes, pp. 309-328; K Low, P Radhakrishnan, K Schneider K and J Rounds, ‘The experiences of bystanders of workplace ethnic harassment’ (2007) 37(10) Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 2261-2297.

[105] J Berdahl, V Magley and C Waldo, ‘The sexual harassment of men?’ (1996) 20 Psychology of Women Quarterly, pp. 527-547; W Richman-Hirsch and T Glomb, ‘Are men affected by the sexual harassment of women? Effects of ambient sexual harassment on men’ in J Brett & F Drasgow (eds), Psychology of Work: Theoretically Based Empirical Research (2002), pp. 121-140.

[106] K Miner-Rubino and L Cortina, ‘Beyond targets: consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work’ (2007) 92(5) Journal of Applied Psychology, pp.1254-1269.

[107] K Low, P Radhakrishnan, K Schneider and J Rounds, ‘The experiences of bystanders of workplace ethnic harassment’ (2007) 37(10) Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 2261-2297.

[108] R Cialdini, S Brown, B Lewis, C Luce and S Neuberg, ‘Retinterpreting the empathy-alrtruism relationship: when one into one equals oneness’ (1997) 73 Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, pp. 481-494.

[109] B Pesta, M Hrivnak and K Dunegan, ‘Parsing work environments along the dimensions of sexual and non-sexual harassment: drawing lines in office sand’ (2007) 19 Employee Responsibility and Rights Journal, pp. 45-55.

[110] The vast majority of this research is grounded in psychological theory and uses vignette-type studies where respondents are presented with written or verbal scenarios and stories describing sexual harassment and are asked for their perceptions. This body of work is also heavily reliant on the use of American undergraduate college student as samples.
[111] R Sorenson, M Mangione-Lambir and R Luzio, ‘Solving the chronic problem of sexual harassment in the workplace: an empirical study of factors affecting employee perceptions and consequences of sexual harassment’ (1998) 34 California Western Law Review, pp. 457-491.

[112] J Berdahl and C Moore, ‘Workplace harassment: double jeopardy for minority women’ (2006) 91(2) Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 426–436; C Gallivan, C Nelson, J Halpert and D Cellar, ‘Organizational responses for preventing and stopping sexual harassment: effective deterrents or continued endurance?’ (2007) 56(11/12) Sex Roles, pp. 811–822; M McCabe M and L Hardman, ‘Attitudes and perceptions of workers to sexual harassment’ (2005) 145(6) The Journal of Social Psychology, pp. 719–740; L Reese and K Lindenberg, Implementing sexual harassment policy: Challenges for the public sector workplace (1999); C Tang, M Yik, F Cheung, P Choi and K Au, ‘How do Chinese college students define sexual harassment?’ (1995) 10(4) Journal of Interpersonal Violence, pp. 503–515.

[113] J Blumenthal, ‘The reasonable woman standard: a meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment’ (1998) 22 Law and Human Behavior, pp. 33-57; M Rotundo, D Nguyen and P Sackett, ‘A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment’ (2001) 86 Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 914-922.

[114] S Osman, ‘Predicting perceptions of sexual harassment based on type of resistance and belief in token resistance’ (2007) 44(4) Journal of Sex Research, pp. 340-346.

[115] J Hurt, J Maver and D Hofmann, ‘Situational and individual influences on judgments of hostile environment sexual harassment’ (1999) 29 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 1395-1415.

[116] J Hurt, J Maver and D Hofmann, ‘Situational and individual influences on judgments of hostile environment sexual harassment’ (1999) 29 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 1395-1415; J Johnson, C Benson, A Teasdale, S Simmons and W Reed, ‘Perceptual ambiguity, gender and target intoxication: assessing the effects of factors that moderate perceptions of sexual harassment’ (1997) 27 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 1209-1221; S Osman, ‘Victim resistance: theory and data on understanding perceptions of sexual harassment’ (2004) 50 Sex Roles, pp. 267-275.

[117] M Rotundo,, D Nguyen and P Sackett, ‘A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment’ (2001) 86 Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 914-922.

[118] D Balogh, M Kite, K Pickel, D Canel and J Schroeder, ‘The effects of delayed report and motive for reporting on perceptions of sexual harassment’ (2003) 48(7/8) Sex Roles, pp. 337–348.

[119] K Lonsway, L Cortina and V Magley, ‘Sexual harassment mythology: definition, conceptualization and measurement’ (2008) 58 Sex Roles, pp. 599-615.

[120] K Smirles, ‘Attributions of responsibility in cases of sexual harassment: the person and the situation’ (2004) 34 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 342-365.

[121] M De Judicibus and M McCabe, ‘Blaming the target of sexual harassment: impact of gender role, sexist attitudes and work role’ (2001) 44(7/8) Sex Roles, pp. 401-417.

[122] C Benavides-Espinoza and G Cunningham, ‘Bystanders’ reactions to sexual harassment’ (2010) 63 Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, pp. 201-213; J Johnson, C Benson, A Teasdale, S Simmons and W Reed, ‘Perceptual ambiguity, gender and target intoxication: assessing the effects of factors that moderate perceptions of sexual harassment’ (1997) 27 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 1209-1221.

[123] M Plater and R Thomas, ‘The impact of job performance, gender and ethnicity on the managerial review of sexual harassment’ (1998) 26 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 520-542.

[124] D Salin, ‘Organizational responses to workplace harassment: an exploratory study’ (2007) 38(1) Personnel Review, pp. 26-44.

[125] M Flood and B Pease, The Factors Influencing Community Attitudes in Relation to Violence Against Women: A Critical Review of the Literature, Victorian Health Promotion Foundation, (2006), pp 21-25.

[126] M De Judicibus and M McCabe, ‘Blaming the target of sexual harassment: impact of gender role, sexist attitudes and work role’ (2001) 44(7/8) Sex Roles, pp. 401-417; J Wade and C Brittan-Powell, ‘Men’s attitudes toward race and gender equity: the importance of masculinity ideology, gender-related traits and reference group identity dependence’ (2001) 2(1) Psychology of Men and Masculinity, pp. 42-50.

[127] S Osman, ‘Predicting perceptions of sexual harassment based on type of resistance and belief in token resistance’ (2007) 44(4) Journal of Sex Research, pp. 340-346; R Weiner, A Hackney, K Kadela, S Rauch, H Seib, L Warren and L Hurt, ‘The fit and implementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evaluations’ (2002) 87(4) Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 747-764; D Yagil, O Karnieli-Miller, Z Eisikovits and G Enosh, ‘Is that a ‘no’? the interpretation of responses to unwanted sexual attention’ (2006) 54 Sex Roles, pp. 251-260.

[128] K Smirles, ‘Attributions of responsibility in cases of sexual harassment: the person and the situation’ (2004) 34 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 342-365.

[129] S Lamb, The Trouble with Blame: Victims, Perpetrators and Responsibility (1996); R Weiner, R Reiter-Palmon, R Winter, E Richter, A Humke and E Maeder, ‘Complainant behavioural tone, ambivalent sexism and perceptions of sexual harassment’ (2010) 16(1) Psychology, Public Policy and Law, pp. 56-84.

[130] T Jones, ‘Ethical decision making by individuals in organizations: an issue-contingent model’ (1991) 16 Academy of Management Review, pp. 266-295; L Bowes-Sperry and A O’Leary-Kelly, ‘To act or not to act: the dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers’ (2005) 30 Academy of Management Review, pp. 288-306.

[131] S Osman, ‘Predicting perceptions of sexual harassment based on type of resistance and belief in token resistance’ (2007) 44(4) Journal of Sex Research, pp. 340-346.

[132] J Tata, ‘She said, he said: the influence of remedial accounts on third-party judgments of coworker sexual harassment’ (2000) 26 Journal of Management, pp. 1133-1156.

[133] T Jones and M Remland, ‘Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment’ (1992) 27 Sex Roles, pp. 121-141.

[134] J Madera, K Podratz, E King and M Hebl, ‘Schematic responses to sexual harassment complainants: the influence of gender and physical attractiveness’ (2007) 56 Sex Roles, pp. 223-230.

[135] J Madera, K Podratz, E King and M Hebl, ‘Schematic responses to sexual harassment complainants: the influence of gender and physical attractiveness’ (2007) 56 Sex Roles, pp. 223-230.

[136] J Wayne, C Riordan and K Thomas, ‘Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decision in same- and cross-gender cases’ (2001) 86 Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 179-187.

[137] K Smirles, ‘Attributions of responsibility in cases of sexual harassment: the person and the situation’ (2004) 34 Journal of Applied Social Psychology, pp. 342-365.

[138] J Golden, C Johnson and R Lopez, ‘Sexual harassment in the workplace: exploring the effects of physical attractiveness on perception of harassment’ (2001) 45 Sex Roles, pp. 767-784; J Madera, K Podratz, E King and M Hebl, ‘Schematic responses to sexual harassment complainants: the influence of gender and physical attractiveness’ (2007) 56 Sex Roles, pp. 223-230.

[139] W Hendrix, J Rueb and R Steel, ‘Sexual harassment and gender differences’ (1998) 13(2) Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, pp. 235-252; J Pryor, ‘The phenomenology of sexual harassment: Why does sexual behavior bother people in the workplace?’ (1995) 47(3) Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, pp. 160-168.

[140] E DeSouza and J Solberg, ‘Women’s and men’s reactions to man-to-man sexual harassment: does the sexual orientation of the victim matter?’ (2004) 50 Sex Roles, pp. 623-639; J Wayne, C Riordan and K Thomas, ‘Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decision in same- and cross-gender cases’ (2001) 86 Journal of Applied Psychology, pp. 179-187.

[141] B Goldman, ‘Toward an understanding of employment discrimination claiming: an integration of organizational justice and social information processing theories’ (2001) 54 Personnel Psychology, pp. 361-386.

[142] L Bowes-Sperry and A O’Leary-Kelly, ‘To act or not to act: the dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers’ (2005) 30 Academy of Management Review, pp. 288-306.

[143] Australian Human Rights Commission, Sexual Harassment: Serious Business. Results of the 2008 Sexual Harassment National Telephone Survey (2008).

[144] J Handy, ‘Sexual harassment in small-town New Zealand: a qualitative study of three contrasting organizations’ (2006) 13(1) Gender, Work & Organization, pp. 1-24.

[145] J Handy, above.

[146] J Handy, above.

[147] J Eveline and M Booth, ‘Gender and sexuality in discourse of managerial control: the case of women miners’ (2002) 9(5) Gender, Work & Organization, p. 568.

[148] J Eveline and M Booth, ‘Gender and sexuality in discourse of managerial control: the case of women miners’ (2002) 9(5) Gender, Work & Organization, pp. 556-578.

[149] P McDonald, T Graham and B Martin, ‘Outrage management in cases of sexual harassment as revealed in judicial decisions’ (2010) 34(2) Psychology of Women Quarterly, pp.165-180.