Skip to main content

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.