Sexualization of Sexual Harassment Victims Reduces Bystanders’ Help: The Mediating Role of Attribution of Immorality and Blame

Abstract

Women’s representation in social media is becoming increasingly sexualized, even when they are victims of sexual harassment (SH). In the present research, we adopted a bystander approach to investigate the role of victims’ sexualization on bystanders’ reactions to an episode of SH. In Study 1, female participants read a fictitious newspaper article that described a workplace SH episode: According to condition, the article included a picture of the victim who was wearing either sexualized or nonsexualized clothing. In Study 2, which also included male participants, we used a similar procedure and measured a series of traditional beliefs against women equality. As predicted, participants showed lower willingness to help the sexualized than nonsexualized victim: This effect occurred because they attributed lower morality to the victim and blamed her more for the SH event. Study 2 very well replicated Study 1 results and also showed that higher levels of endorsement of traditional masculine norms further enhanced biased perception of the sexualized (vs. nonsexualized) victim. Together, findings suggest that biased evaluations of workplace SH episodes associated with sexualized victims’ appearance, consistent with traditional masculine norms, may have detrimental consequences by increasing legitimization and tolerance toward SH.

Keywords

sexualization objectification morality blame attribution sexual harassment

Western media constantly show pictures and videos in which women are depicted in a highly sexualized manner (Loughnan & Pacilli, 2014; Zanardo, 2010). The consequences of sexualization may be serious. When observers focus on the physical aspect of a woman, her mental and moral status is perceived as less human or, in just one word, she is “depersonalized” (Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009; Heflick, Goldenberg, Cooper, & Puvia, 2011; Loughnan et al., 2010). Sexualized women are also perceived as sexually promiscuous, unreliable, and insincere (Abbey, Cozzarelli, McLaughlin, & Harnish, 1987; Cahoon & Edmonds, 1989; Heflick et al., 2011; Vaes, Paladino, & Puvia, 2011). Despite evidence that sexualization reduces attribution of human mental states (e.g., competence and intelligence; Glick, Larsen, Johnson, & Branstiter, 2005; Gray, Knobe, Sheskin, Bloom, & Barrett, 2011; Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009; Loughnan et al., 2010), surprisingly no research has demonstrated this biased perception and addressed its concrete consequences in the context of sexual harassment (SH). A recent survey by the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT; 2010) has shown that about half of all women between 14 and 65 years of age (51.8%) have experienced SH or sexual blackmail over their life. Of these, about 19% experienced it at the workplace. Other survey findings are in line with these data, reporting that 55% of women have been victims of SH since the age of 15 in the European Union (European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights, 2014) and approximately 50% of women have experienced some form of SH in the workplace over their career in the United States (McDonald, 2012). These data on the prevalence of SH are impressive. It is much more frequent than rape and has significant costs to the victim. For example, SH in the workplace—the focus of the present research—leads to decreased job satisfaction, job performance, and organizational commitment, as well as increased anxiety and depression (Cortina & Magley, 2003; Willness, Steel, & Lee, 2007).

The main aim of the present research is to investigate bystanders’ reactions to workplace SH episodes, particularly important because research has shown that social support from colleagues, friends, and family members is a significant response strategy for coping with SH (Knapp, Faley, Ekeberg, & Dubois, 1997; Wasti & Cortina, 2002). The majority of SH incidents take place in the presence of bystanders who, according to literature, often remain passive rather than intervening in defense of the victim (e.g., Bowes-Sperry & O’Leary-Kelly, 2005; O’Leary-Kelly, Paetzold, & Griffin, 2000). Although observer intervention to minimize or prevent SH has been overlooked in SH research, some studies suggest potential reasons why observers might be afraid to intervene. For example, Bowes-Sperry and O’Leary-Kelly (2005) suggest that observer helping behavior is unlikely when the witnessed conduct appears ambiguous (e.g., ambiguity created by lack of social information regarding whether the situation is an emergency). Furthermore, gender stereotypical images may affect observers’ impression of SH episodes (Hansen & Hansen, 1988) by contributing to create a normative context that discourages individuals from perceiving SH as inappropriate and unethical. In line with studies on sexualization (Abbey et al., 1987; Cahoon & Edmonds, 1989), we suggest that not only sexually represented victims of SH will be perceived as immoral and responsible for being sexually harassed (in rape contexts, Brems & Wagner, 1994; Loughnan, Pina, Vasquez, & Puvia, 2013) but that this same perception will also decrease their chance to be supported and helped (for intimate partner violence [IPV], Pacilli et al., 2017).

Morality

Morality is used to judge the appropriateness of social behavior, in terms of honesty and trustworthiness (Ellemers, Pagliaro, & Barreto, 2013). It is crucial in guiding impression formation and consequent behavioral intentions and behavior toward other individuals/groups, especially in terms of approach/avoidance (for a review, see Brambilla & Leach, 2014). For example, in case of a man raping a woman, people are likely to focus more on the victim than on the perpetrator and thus perceive the event as mostly determined by the woman, in line with the view of women as guardians of sexual morality (Abrams, Viki, Masser, & Bohner, 2003). Although perception of victims’ morality has been associated with IPV (Pacilli et al., 2017), surprisingly morality perception has not been investigated in the area of SH. We hypothesize that morality plays a crucial role in perception as well as in behavioral intentions toward an SH victim. Specifically, we expect individuals to judge an SH victim as deserving help depending on the degree to which they consider her capable of acting morally.

Attribution of Blame

It is reasonable to assume that when a sexualized victim of SH is judged as immoral, she may also be blamed for the event. SH past research indicates that people tend to assign more blame to a victim who wears body-revealing (vs. not body-revealing) clothing, in line with the common belief that clothes play a role in eliciting SH (Johnson & Workman, 1994). More recent research in the area of rape has shown that sexualization of victims plays a crucial role when deciding who is responsible for the event. Loughnan and colleagues (2013) have shown that sexualized victims elicit higher levels of victim blame and lower moral concern compared with nonsexualized victims. Going from acquaintance rape to stranger rape contexts, Bernard Loughnan, Marchal, Godart, and Klein (2015) also found that victim sexualization reduces rapist blame, but does not affect victim blame, in contrast with Loughnan et al.’s findings. To interpret this discrepancy, Bernard and colleagues suggested that exempting the rapist and blaming the victim represent two distinct psychological outcomes that may depend on the type of rape, that is, stranger versus acquaintance rape. Despite these inconsistencies, the association between sexualization and blame to either the victim or the perpetrator has been shown in the area of rape. Therefore, to extend Loughnan et al.’s (2013) findings to the area of SH, we hypothesize that a sexualized (vs. a nonsexualized) woman who is sexually harassed by an acquaintance will be blamed more for the event. More importantly, we move forward by investigating whether this attribution of blame to the sexualized victim reduces the willingness to help her.

The Present Research

The goal of the present research is to connect two research areas, sexualization and SH, by investigating for the first time the effects of victim sexualization on the perception of workplace SH episodes. Across two studies, we test whether judging a sexualized versus nonsexualized victim of SH as immoral and responsible for the event decreases bystanders’ behavioral intentions to help her. In Study 1, we test bystanders’ perception of morality and blame toward the victim as mediators of the effect of victim sexualization on willingness to help her. In Study 2, we extend these hypotheses by exploring the role of participants’ gender and individual-difference characteristics that are relevant to traditional norms regarding gender relations (e.g., Galdi, Maass, & Cadinu, 2014).

Study 1

Study 1 investigates bystander perception of a sexualized female victim of workplace SH and whether this perception affects willingness to help her. Participants were asked to simulate the role of a bystander (i.e., job colleague) of a case of workplace SH, in which the victim was presented in either a sexualized or nonsexualized manner. After rating victim morality and blame, participants indicated their willingness to help her (for a similar design in the area of IPV, see Pacilli et al., 2017). In line with previous findings on perception of sexualized social targets (Abbey et al., 1987; Cahoon & Edmonds, 1989; Gray et al., 2011; Heflick et al., 2011; Pacilli et al., 2017), we predict that the SH sexualized victim will be perceived as less moral compared with the nonsexualized victim (H1). Extending to the area of SH previous findings showing that women who wear attractive and provocative clothing are held more responsible for being raped than women who wear unattractive and demure clothing (Brems & Wagner, 1994; Loughnan et al., 2013), we further expect participants to attribute more blame (i.e., responsibility) to the sexualized than the nonsexualized victim (H2). Last but not least, we hypothesize that victim sexualization will also reduce bystander’s willingness to help her as she is perceived as lacking morality (H3a) and deserving blame for being harassed (H3b), that is, she is seen as a “bad woman,” thus deserving less support and help compared with the nonsexualized victim.

Method

Participants and design

One hundred fifty-one female volunteer undergraduates were recruited at a University campus (age range: 18-36; M = 19.66, SD = 2.09) and randomly assigned to the sexualized or nonsexualized condition. The sample included mostly heterosexual participants (N = 146), three homosexual, and two bisexual participants.

Procedure and material

After informed consent, participants completed paper-and-pencil questionnaires. They read a fictitious online newspaper article describing a story of SH in the workplace, specifically the story of “Sara C.,” a 32-year-old woman who has been working for a local company for 7 years and is sexually harassed by her boss. The boss, Giovanni B., a 45-year-old man, at the beginning asks for practical favors and to run personal errands, but later becomes more insistent all the way to making explicit sexual advances. As Sara C. has always refused his advances, the boss delivers an ultimatum to her, that is, to have sex with him or be fired. The article emphasizes that the woman is desperate, she is also worried about her current difficult economic situation, and even her productivity at work has decreased, as testified by her colleagues. It should be noted that participants were presented with one of two scenarios, which described otherwise similar SH episodes with different levels of severity. As preliminary analyses showed that scenario severity had no effect on any dependent variables, this variable will not be further discussed (full text of the scenarios is available upon request).

Sexualization manipulation

After reading the scenario, participants were shown a picture of the fictitious victim that was allegedly taken from her Facebook profile. We relied on Facebook profiles because they have been increasingly adopted to acquire information during selection procedures in the workplace environment (Roth, Bobko, Van Iddekinge, & Thatcher, 2016) and more generally for impression formation in social relations (Van Der Heide, D’Angelo, & Schumaker, 2012). In the nonsexualized condition (n = 76), Sara C. wears jeans and sweater (see Figure A1). In the sexualized condition (n = 75), she is scantily dressed and wears sexy clothes and high-heeled shoes (see Figure A2). The two pictures show the same woman in an identical pose, wearing the same makeup, but different clothing. Prior to picture exposure, participants were instructed to look carefully at the picture to try to get an idea of this person from the picture because they would be later asked to respond to a series of questions about her. Participants then completed the following measures in the order that they are presented. Please note that other measures were collected (the complete list is available upon request).

Measures

Morality

To measure the attribution of morality to the victim, participants indicated the extent to which they rated Sara C. as trustworthy, honest, and sincere (from 1 = not at all to 9 = very much; α = .80; Leach, Ellemers, & Barreto, 2007). These items have been widely adopted in the literature about social perception (for a review, see Brambilla & Leach, 2014).

Manipulation check

To test the efficacy of the manipulation, participants indicated the extent to which they perceived the woman in the picture as sexy (from 1 = not at all to 9 = very much).

Blame attribution

The question “How responsible is Sara C. for her boss behavior?” measured victim blame. Moreover, perpetrator’s blame was measured with two questions (“How much is Giovanni B. responsible for his behavior toward Sara C.?” and “How intentional was Sara’s boss behavior?”), which were analyzed separately because they showed a low correlation, r(151) = .36; p = .01. Scale points: 1 = not at all and 9 = very much.

Willingness to help

Participants were asked to imagine to be victim’s co-workers (i.e., indirect witnesses) and indicate the extent to which they would engage in five specific help behaviors (e.g., “Suggest to Sara C. to turn to the Gender Discrimination Center of the city and possibly accompany her”; “Contact the Anti-Violence Center to find out how to help her”; “Encourage Sara C. to turn to a Trade Union and possibly accompany her”; from 1 = not at all likely to 9 =very likely). The scale showed sufficient reliability (α = .69) so that average scores of willingness to help were used.

Participants indicated their age, gender, and sexual orientation by choosing an option between homosexual, bisexual, heterosexual, or other (with request to specify); they were then fully debriefed and in line with Ethics committee were asked to sign another consent form to allow the use of their data for research purposes.

Results

Zero-order correlations among the key measures are presented in Table 1.

Table 1.

Study 1. Zero-Order Correlations Among Measures.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6
1. Sexy	6.05	1.87	1	.264**	.299**	.026	.247**	.092
2. Moral	6.12	1.27		1	−.147	.273**	.071	.017
3. Victim blame	3.32	1.88			1	−.258**	−.043	.000
4. Willingness to help	6.59	1.41				1	.195*	.178*
5. Perpetrator intention	8.08	1.13					1	.357**
6. Perpetrator blame	8.19	1.43						1

p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.

Manipulation check

Supporting the efficacy of the manipulation, participants rated the victim as more sexy in the sexualized condition (M = 6.59, SD = 1.79) than in the nonsexualized condition (M = 5.51, SD = 1.80), t(149) = 3.68, p < .001, d = 0.60.

Morality and blame attribution

In line with H1, participants attributed less morality to the victim in the sexualized (M = 5.85, SD = 1.25) than in the nonsexualized condition (M = 6.39, SD = 1.24), t(149) = 2.64, p = .01, d = 0.43. Furthermore, in line with H2, participants blamed more the sexualized (M = 3.81, SD = 1.94) than the nonsexualized victim (M = 2.84, SD = 1.70), t(149) = 3.27, p = .001, d = 0.53. No effects of condition were found on the boss intentionality (M_sexualized = 8.25, SD = 1.01; M_{nonsexualized} = 7.91, SD = 1.22) and blame to the boss (M_sexualized = 8.23, SD = 1.41; M_{nonsexualized} = 8.14, SD = 1.46), t_s(149) < −1.89, p_s > .06.

Willingness to help the victim

A multiple mediation analysis was conducted to test the hypotheses that the effect of condition on willingness to help the victim is mediated by victim morality (H3a) and attribution of blame to her (H3b). The overall model was significant R² = .13, F(3, 147) = 7.06, p < .001. Although there was no direct effect of victim’s sexualization on the willingness to help her, consistent with Hayes (2009), an independent variable can exert an indirect effect on a variable, even in the absence of a direct association between them, via a third variable. Accordingly, we estimated indirect effects through PROCESS (Bolin, 2014, Model 4) and included in the model both victim morality and victim blame as mediators to predict Help by using bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples to compute 95% confidence intervals (Bolin, 2014). A bootstrapping procedure showed that both victim morality (b = −0.14, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [–0.295, −0.019]) and victim blame (b = −0.15, SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [–0.384, −0.029]) significantly mediated the effect of condition on Help (see Figure 1). Thus, confirming H4, the SH victim was less likely to receive help from bystanders after being presented in a sexualized (vs. nonsexualized) way because she was perceived as both less and more responsible for being harassed. Although this mediation pattern of results further reflects the order in which the two constructs were assessed in the questionnaire, we also tested the reverse models in which Help was the mediator of the effect of sexualization on morality and on blame. The reverse models were not significant (b = −0.12, SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [–0.312, 0.014] and b = 0.16, SE = 0.10, 95% CI= [–0.008, 0.420], respectively).

Figure 1.

Study 1. Indirect effects of sexualization of sexual harassment victim on willingness to help her via attribution of morality and blame.

Discussion

Recent studies have shown the important role of female sexualization in situations in which women are mistreated (Bernard et al., 2015; Loughnan et al., 2013; Pacilli et al., 2017). Study 1 substantially extends these findings by examining for the first time the effects of sexualization on the perception and behavioral intentions to help a female SH victim. In line with previous research on the effects of sexualization on the perception of morality of social targets, we showed that the sexualized (vs. nonsexualized) victim of SH was perceived as less moral. A second important result is the predicted effect of sexualization on victim blame. Consistent with previous research on rape, participants reported higher blame toward the sexualized than nonsexualized SH victim. Third, supporting the main goal of the study, the attribution of morality and blame to the sexualized victim of workplace SH is associated with the help responses from bystanders: Participants were less willing to help the sexualized victim precisely because they perceived her less moral and deserving more blame for being harassed compared with the nonsexualized victim. Altogether, this chain of effects demonstrates that sexualization heavily affects the perception of SH victims to the point of decreasing bystanders’ help intentions.

Study 2

In Study 2, we first sought to replicate Study 1 findings by showing lower intention to help a sexualized victim of workplace SH because she is perceived as less moral and more responsible for having been harassed than the nonsexualized victim. As a limitation of Study 1 is that the sample includes only female participants, another goal of Study 2 is to investigate whether participants’ gender may affect overall the perception of SH episodes and also whether gender may moderate the effect of victim sexualization on such perception. Prior rape studies have shown that in general male (vs. female) participants report more victim blame when judging a rape scenario (Bernard et al., 2015; Grubb & Harrower, 2009). At the same time, most sexual objectification studies have found that participants’ gender does not moderate the impact of sexual objectification on target perception and on the perception of rape episodes (Bernard, Gervais, Allen, Campomizzi, & Klein, 2012; Cikara, Eberhardt, & Fiske, 2010; Gervais, Vescio, Maass, Förster, & Suitner, 2012; Heflick & Goldenberg, 2009; Heflick et al., 2011; Loughnan et al., 2013; Vaes et al., 2011). However, so far, the role of participant gender toward sexualized victims has neither been investigated in terms of behavioral intentions to help rape victims nor in the area of SH tout court. Consistent with previous rape research by Bernard et al. (2015) and Grubb and Harrower (2009), we test the hypothesis that male participants will report more blame to a victim of SH compared with female participants (H5a). In addition, we test the moderating role of gender in interaction with sexualization, that is, whether male or female participants would attribute more blame to a sexualized versus nonsexualized victim of SH (H5b).

An additional goal of Study 2 is to test whether and eventually which beliefs and ideologies about relations between women and men are associated with participants’ reactions to sexualized portrayals of SH victims. Social support represents an important component in successful coping with SH (Knapp et al., 1997). According to the literature, such support to SH victims may be particularly susceptible to sociocultural influences because it is affected by socially shared values and beliefs that serve as norms to determine whether and which feelings and behaviors are appropriate in those situations (Lazarus & Folkman, 1984; Wasti & Cortina, 2002). Prior research has investigated the role of hostile sexism (HS) and benevolent sexism (BS) in response to different types of rape scenarios, showing that high (vs. low) benevolent sexist individuals attribute higher blame to acquaintance rape victims because they judge these victims as violators of gender stereotypes (Abrams et al., 2003; Viki & Abrams, 2002; Viki, Abrams, & Hutchison, 2003). However, to our knowledge, no study has investigated the role of HS and BS in response to victims of SH. To fill this gap, we measured ambivalent sexism toward women (Ambivalent Sexism Inventory [ASI]; Glick & Fiske, 1996) and also measured benevolent sexism toward men (BM; Glick & Fiske, 1999) because previous research has shown that these variables are associated with support of rape myths (Chapleau, Oswald, & Russell, 2007). Moreover, following previous research showing higher SH by men with higher levels of traditional masculine norms (i.e., nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality) exposed to sexually objectifying media (Galdi et al., 2014), we also measured this individual difference. In sum, we hypothesize that overall endorsement of traditional beliefs against gender equality will be associated with ratings of a workplace SH victim as less moral and more responsible for being harassed, thus decreasing bystanders’ willingness to help her. Finally, we hypothesize that individuals who endorse traditional beliefs against gender equality will also rate the sexualized victim as less moral and more responsible for being harassed than the nonsexualized victim, thus decreasing their willingness to help her.

To summarize, consistent with Study 1, we hypothesize that the sexualized victim will be judged as less moral (H1) and more responsible for the harassment (H2) than the nonsexualized victim. Moreover, we expect sexualization to reduce willingness to help the victim of SH because she is perceived as lacking morality (H3a) and deserving more blame for being harassed (H3b). In addition, we hypothesize that the victim, regardless of condition, will be judged more responsible for being harassed by male than female participants (H4a) and that gender will moderate the relationship between sexualization and blame, that is, male participants will perceive the sexualized victim more responsible compared with female participants (H4b). Finally, we hypothesize that participants with higher levels of ambivalent sexism toward women, higher BM, and higher nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality will judge the SH victim less moral and more responsible for being harassed (H5), especially in the sexualized versus nonsexualized condition (H6).

Method

Participants and design

One hundred sixty participants (80 males) who volunteered to take part in the study were recruited at the same University as in Study 1. Age ranged from 19 to 34 (M = 23.79, SD = 3.32). The sample was composed of mostly heterosexual (N = 154), three homosexual men, and three bisexual women who were all included in the final sample. As in Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to either the sexualized or nonsexualized condition based on the manipulation of the picture associated with the SH article.

Procedure and material

In the first part of the study, participants were asked to complete the same questionnaires as in Study 1. They first read the same fictitious newspaper article with the enclosed victim’s picture and then were asked to report their perception of the victim, victim blame, their willingness to help her, and sociodemographic information (i.e., age, gender, and sexual orientation). At the end of the first questionnaire, participants were asked to complete another ostensibly separate 10-min questionnaire for another study to supposedly help the experimenter validate some scales, the first of which was a filler scale on renewable energy (Hae-kyong, Ellinger, Hadjimarcou, & Traichal, 2000). The second questionnaire measured a series of individual differences on traditional beliefs against women equality (see below). Please note that other measures were also collected (the complete list of measures is available upon request).

Ambivalent sexism toward women

Participants completed the ASI (Glick & Fiske, 1996), which consists of 22 items, 11 of which make up the HS subscale and 11 the BS subscale. Participants responded on 7-point scales from 1 (not at all likely) to 7 (very likely). Good reliability was found on the overall ASI (α = .92), HS (α = .91) and BS (α = .87) subscales.

BM

Participants also completed the 10-item BM subscale of the Ambivalence toward Men Inventory (AMI; Glick & Fiske, 1999; from 1 = not at all likely to 7 = very likely; α = .89). The order of BM and ASI was counterbalanced across participants and no order effects were found.

Nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality

To investigate conformity with traditional masculine norms, participants completed the nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality subscale (six items, e.g., “It is right that a man uses any method to convince a woman to have sex with him”; from 1 = not at all likely to 7 = very likely; α = .74) from the Masculine Role Norm Inventory–Revised (MRNI-R; Levant et al., 2007).

At the end, participants were fully debriefed both verbally and by reading a written explanation of the study, after which they signed a final consent statement allowing their data to be included in the study. All participants signed the final consent.

Results

Zero-order correlations among the key measures are presented in Table 2.

Table 2.

Study 2. Zero-Order Correlations Among Measures.

	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
1. Sexy	6.18	1.73	1	.145	.107	−.086	.168*	.122	.175*	.253**	.062	−.018
2. Moral	6.39	1.31		1	−.204**	.250**	−.084	−.083	−.066	−.101	−.080	.100
3. Victim blame	3.58	2.34			1	−.325**	.308**	.277**	.267**	.380**	.313**	.062
4. Willingness to help	7.23	1.27				1	−.271**	−.250**	−.230**	−.301**	−.218**	.064
5. ASI	3.29	1.05					1	.888**	.880**	.772**	.574**	−.107
6. HS (ASI)	3.19	1.21						1	.562**	.642**	.539**	−.182*
7. BS (ASI)	3.40	1.17							1	.723**	.474**	−.004
8. BM (AMI)	2.73	1.88								1	.550**	−114
9. Nonrelational sex (MRNI)	2.27	1.05									1	−174*
10. Gender												1

Note. ASI = Ambivalent Sexism Inventory; HS = Hostile Sexism; AMI = Ambivalence toward Men Inventory; MRNI = Masculine Role Norm Inventory.

p < .05. **p < .01, two-tailed.

Manipulation check

Participants rated the victim as more sexy in the sexualized (M = 6.70, SD = 1.73) than in the nonsexualized condition (M = 5.68, SD = 1.6), t(158) = 3.87, p < .001, d = 0.61, supporting the efficacy of the manipulation. No main or interaction effects of gender were found, F_s(1, 156) < 1.69, p_s > .20.

Morality and blame attribution

In line with Study 1, participants attributed lower morality to the sexualized (M = 6.06, SD = 1.21) than nonsexualized victim (M = 6.71, SD = 1.34), F(1, 158) = 10.17, p = .002, $η_{p}^{2} = . 06$ (H1). They also blamed more the sexualized (M = 4.11, SD = 2.4) than nonsexualized victim (M = 3.06, SD = 2.1), F(1, 158) = 8.46, p = .004, $η_{p}^{2} = . 05$ (H2). No direct or interaction effects of gender emerged on morality, F_s(1, 156) < .70, p_s > .40, and blame, F_s(1, 156) < 2.90, p_s > .09.¹

Willingness to help

A multiple mediation analysis was conducted to test whether the effect of victim sexualization on the intention to help her was mediated by the attribution of morality to her, by attribution of blame to her or both. The overall model was significant R² = .14, F(3, 156) = 8.52, p < .001. As in Study 1, although the direct effect of sexualization on willingness to help was not significant, we estimated indirect effects through the Macro PROCESS (Bolin, 2014, Model 4) by including in the model both victim morality and victim blame as mediators to predict help, specifically using bootstrapping with 1,000 resamples to compute 95% confidence intervals. Both victim morality (b = −0.12, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [–0.292, −0.006]) and victim blame (b = −0.16, SE = 0.07, 95% CI = [–0.333, −0.046]) significantly mediated the effect of sexualization on willingness to help. Thus, confirming H3a and H3b and replicating results of Study 1, bystanders were less willing to help the sexualized (vs. nonsexualized) victim specifically because she was perceived both as less moral and more responsible for being sexually harassed (see Figure 2). As in Study 1, we also tested the reverse models in which Help was the mediator of the effect of sexualization on morality and on blame. The reverse models were not significant (b = −0.11, SE = 0.08, 95% CI = [–0.322, 0.007] and b = 0.24, SE = 0.16, 95% CI = [–0.040, 0.610], respectively).

Figure 2.

Study 2. Indirect effects of sexualization of sexual harassment victim on willingness to help her via attribution of morality and blame.

Effects of sexualization, gender, and ambivalent sexism toward women on morality and victim blame

Participants’ level of ambivalent sexism toward women on morality was assessed in the context of a moderated multiple regression using PROCESS (Model 3). Specifically, we tested the effect of sexualization (nonsexualized condition = 0, sexualized condition = 1) on attribution of morality to the victim based on the conditional effects of level of ambivalent sexism (continuous, centered) and participants’ gender (M = 0, F = 1) as moderators. The overall model was significant F(7, 152) = 3.14, p = .004, even though the three-way Sexualization × Participants’ Gender × Ambivalent Sexism interaction did not significantly increase the amount of the variance explained (ΔR² = .01, R² = .10, p = .18). Neither the main effects of gender and ambivalent sexism nor their interaction was significant with regard to attribution of morality to the victim, t_s < 1.70, p_s > .09.

The same multiple moderation analysis was conducted on victim blame. The overall model was significant, F(7, 152) = 5.52, p < .001, even though the model including the three-way interaction Sexualization × Participants’ Gender × Ambivalent Sexism did not significantly increase the amount of the variance explained (ΔR² = .02, R² = .17, p = .07). Overall, a significant main effect of participants’ ambivalent sexism on victim blame was found, t = 2.72, p = .007, 95% CI = [0.2527, 1.5871]: Consistent with H5, participants with higher levels of ambivalent sexism toward women attributed more blame to the victim for being sexually harassed compared with participants with lower levels of ambivalent sexism.

Effects of sexualization, gender, and nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality on morality and victim blame

We assessed participants’ endorsement of traditional male role norms about sex on the attribution of morality to the victim using PROCESS (Model 3). The overall model was significant, F(7, 152) = 3.82, p = .001. Even though the model including the three-way interaction Sexualization × Participants’ Gender × Nonrelational Attitudes toward Sexuality did not significantly increase the amount of variance explained (ΔR² = .00, R² = .18, p = .50), a significant two-way interaction Sexualization × Nonrelational Attitudes toward Sexuality on victim morality was found. Consistent with H6, in support of the moderation hypothesis, the interaction between sexualization and nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality on attribution of morality to the victim was significant, t = −2.71, p = .02, 95% CI = [–1.0435, −0.1629]: Higher endorsement of traditional masculine norms about sex predicted significantly lower attribution of morality to the sexualized than to the nonsexualized victim of SH.

Also, participants’ level of nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality on victim blame was assessed using PROCESS (Model 3). We tested the effect of sexualization (nonsexualized condition = 0, sexualized condition = 1) on attribution of blame to the victim based on the conditional effect of level of nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality (continuous, centered) and participants’ gender (M = 0, F = 1) as moderators. The model was significant F(7, 152) = 3.63, p = .001, but the three-way interaction Sexualization × Participants’ Gender × Nonrelational Attitudes toward Sexuality did not significantly increase the amount of variance explained (ΔR² = .00, R² = .17, p = .86). Overall, a significant main effect of participants’ nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality was found, t = 3.82, p = .002, 95% CI = [0.3601, 1.1319]. In line with H5, participants with higher levels of nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality attributed more blame to the victim for being sexually harassed than participants with lower nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality.

Effects of gender and BM on victim blame

Finally, we investigated the effect of participants’ level of BM on victim blame. As BM was affected by sexualization (see below), the two-way interaction Participants’ Level of BM × Participants’ Gender was assessed using PROCESS (Model 1). The overall model was significant, F(3, 156) = 10.81, p < .001, even though the model including the two-way interaction BM × Participants’ Gender did not significantly increase the amount of the variance explained (ΔR² = .001, R² = .16, p = .61). Overall, a significant main effect of participants’ BM on victim blame was found, t = 5.66, p < .001, 95% CI = [0.5002, 1.0364]. Confirming H5, participants with higher levels of BM attributed more blame to the victim compared with participants with lower levels of BM.²

BM

BM, originally hypothesized to be a moderator, was affected by the manipulation. Interestingly, results showed that both men and women reported more benevolent attitudes toward men in the sexualized (M = 2.97, SD = 1.17) than in the nonsexualized condition (M = 2.51, SD = 1.17), F(1, 158) = 6.13, p = .01, $η_{p}^{2} = . 04,$ suggesting that this kind of sexism is malleable and susceptible to situational variables such as exposure to sexualized representations of women.

Discussion

The main results from Study 2 very well replicate Study 1. When asked to indicate the likelihood to help a victim of workplace SH, participants were less willing to help a sexualized than a nonsexualized victim specifically because they rated her less moral and more responsible for being harassed compared with a nonsexualized victim.

An important goal of Study 2 was to investigate the role of sociocultural beliefs in reaction to workplace SH episodes. As expected, those beliefs were significantly associated with the appraisal and reactions to SH, confirming our view that the societal context in terms of values and norms helps validate SH. Specifically, Study 2 extends Study 1 with respect to traditional beliefs on gender relations. Consistent with Glick and Fiske (1997) who described the dual nature of sexism to keep women in line in a male-dominated society, we showed a main effect of ambivalent sexism toward women on victim blame. Both female and male participants with higher levels of ambivalent sexism rated the victim as more responsible for being sexually harassed, thus justifying and corroborating male power.

Another novel result of Study 2 is that higher endorsement of traditional masculine norms about sex was associated with lower attribution of morality to a sexualized than nonsexualized victim of SH. This finding extends previous research in an important way: Participants with higher levels of endorsement of traditional masculine norms showed more severity especially toward those victims of SH who are sexualized, a result suggesting that these participants might have internalized the societal role of women as the guardians of morality (Weller, 1992). Interestingly, this result very well complements previous SH research showing that exposure to media characterized by female sexualization increases male nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality (MRNI-R), which in turn increased SH (Galdi et al., 2014). Moreover, contrary to Hypothesis 5a, male participants did not report more victim blame compared with female participants. This result suggests that stereotypical attitudes toward SH might be a better predictor of blame attribution to SH victim than participant gender itself. Overall, the present results are consistent with prior sexual objectification research, which generally shows no gender effects.

A further innovation of Study 2 concerns BM: BM increased in the sexualization condition, suggesting that this sexist belief was affected by exposure to female sexualization, a result similar to Galdi and colleagues (2014), who found an increase in traditional male norms (MRNI) after exposure to sexually objectifying media. Overall, these findings on nonrelational attitudes toward sexuality and BM are promising because they demonstrate an important link between traditional sexist values and the appraisal of victims of SH, suggesting that traditional sociocultural beliefs and SH episodes fuel each other to further validate the legitimacy of SH.

General Discussion

The present research explored for the first time the role of female sexualization on bystanders’ helping responses to an incident of SH in the workplace. Across two studies, the hypothesized chain of events was strongly supported. First, participants attributed lower morality to a sexualized victim of SH. Second, sexualization of the victim led to perceive her more responsible for being sexually harassed, and, third, most important, this lowered perception of morality and blame was associated with a decrease in helping intentions. These results are important because they show a worrisome chain of repercussions triggered by the sexualization of SH victims, which suggest that sexualization plays a significant role in legitimizing SH and, as a consequence, may discourage witnesses from helping victims and perhaps their recovery.

Study 2 placed Study 1 results in the broader context of societal values. The chain of events demonstrated in Study 1 was replicated and extended in Study 2, in which the role of social norms such as sexist values was demonstrated. Indeed, an important result of Study 2 is that high levels of traditional sociocultural beliefs about gender relations (i.e., MRNI) were significantly associated with biased perception of sexualized SH victims. Compared with nonsexualized victim, the sexualized victim was perceived as less moral especially by people with higher endorsement of traditional masculine norms about sex. In addition, Study 2 showed that exposure to a sexualized victim of workplace SH led to an increase in BM, that is, the justification of the traditional division of gender roles, suggesting that sexist norms are also affected by exposure to female sexualization. This overall pattern of findings suggests that sexualized portraits of women and sexist norms fuel and perpetuate each other in a vicious circle, resulting in a dangerous combination in SH contexts.

Overall, our findings are in line with prior research showing that women and men are equally affected by exposure to female sexualization. Together with the present results on the endorsement of traditional beliefs about gender roles, the general lack of gender differences in the present study also concurs with research conducted within the framework of system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), showing that men and women internalize the dominant group values and legitimize unequal social status to similar degrees (e.g., Kay & Jost, 2014). Put differently, women and men in our study seem to have internalized the dominant male culture to a similar degree as they both perceive sexualized victims of SH as immoral and responsible for being harassed, thus legitimizing both SH and more generally society unequal status quo on gender roles.

The present research shows parallels to research on IPV, which also shows that biased perception of sexualized victims reduces helping intentions (Pacilli et al., 2017). However, different from the present study, in IPV research, regarding the perception of sexualized victims, it was lack of moral patiency, defined as the capability of experiencing psychological or physical pleasure and pain (Gray & Wegner, 2009) rather than lowered morality, as in the present findings, which led to decreased help intentions. The predominance of moral patiency as opposed to morality in IPV scenarios may be due to the fact that help toward the victim in the context of violence is a powerful social norm in our society. Violating this norm by denying help might therefore require the strong justification that the victim does not feel physical and psychological pain.

Some limitations are worth addressing for future research. First, we assumed that behaviors are influenced by proximal intentions (Ajzen, 1991), but there may be cases in which this relationship is not so straightforward so that help intentions may not translate into actual help behaviors (for a review, see Sutton, 1998). Therefore, we suggest that future studies assess sexualization effects of SH victims by directly measuring bystanders’ helping behavior (for example, see Galdi, Maass, & Cadinu, 2017). Second, it may be argued that the present study has low external validity because it is based on a simulation procedure in which bystanders did not judge a real SH victim, even though the use of vignettes is a paradigm that is widely accepted in the literature. Moreover, given that the effects were reliable in such an artificial context, one may argue that the detrimental effects of sexualization on SH victims in the real world were likely underestimated.

Overall, this study shows that sexualization plays a powerful role in the perception of workplace SH victims and therefore may reduce bystanders’ willingness to help them. This study shows that a victim who looks “too sexy” is perceived less moral and more responsible for having been sexually harassed. In addition, a theoretically more important finding is the demonstration that this biased perception is the psychological process explaining why sexualization leads to lower chances to help the victim. Finally, the present results indicate that the endorsement of traditional masculine norms leads both women and men to believe that sexualized victims of SH are immoral, thus further increasing the legitimization and tolerance toward SH.

Footnotes

Appendix

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Anne Maass for her help on a previous version of this manuscript.

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by PRIN grant number 20123X2PXT_003 (2012) from the Italian Ministry of Education, University and Research.

Notes

ORCID iD

Stefano Pagliaro

Author Biographies

Sarah Gramazio holds a PhD in psychological sciences from the University of Padova, Italy. She has been visiting scholar at the Melbourne School of Psychological Sciences, University of Melbourne, Australia (January 2016-July 2016). Her main research interests are in the area of sexual objectification, gender stereotyping, dehumanization, and sexual harassment.

Mara Cadinu is associate professor at the University of Padova. She has been associate editor for the European Journal of Social Psychology (2001-2004) and executive committee member of the European Association of Social Psychology (2011-2017). Among her research areas are sexual objectification, homosexuality, stereotype threat, and sexual harassment.

Stefano Pagliaro is an associate professor at the University of Chieti–Pescara, Italy. His main research interests are in the area of morality, group processes, social influence, and violence against women.

Maria Giuseppina Pacilli is an associate professor in the Department of Political Sciences at the University of Perugia, Italy. Her main research interests are in the area of dehumanization, morality, sexism, and gender discrimination.

References

Abbey

Cozzarelli

McLaughlin

Harnish

J. R.

(1987). The effects of clothing and dyad sex composition on perceptions of sexual intent: Do women and men evaluate these cues differently. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 17, 108-126. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1987.tb00304.x

Abrams

Viki

G. T.

Masser

Bohner

(2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111-125. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.84.1.111

Ajzen

(1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179-211. doi:10.1016/0749-5978(91)90020-T

Bernard

Gervais

S. J.

Allen

Campomizzi

Klein

(2012). Integrating sexual objectification with object versus person recognition: The sexualized-body-inversion hypothesis. Psychological Science, 23, 469-471. doi:10.1177/0956797611434748

Bernard

Loughnan

Marchal

Godart

Klein

(2015). The exonerating effect of sexual objectification: Sexual objectification decreases rapist blame in a stranger rape context. Sex Roles, 72, 499-508. doi:10.1007/s11199-015-0482-0

Bolin

J. H.

(2014). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Journal of Educational Measurement, 51(3), 335-337.

Bowes-Sperry

O’Leary-Kelly

(2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. The Academy of Management Review, 30, 288-306. Retrieved from https://www-jstor-org.web.bisu.edu.cn/stable/20159120

Brambilla

Leach

C. W.

(2014). On the importance of being moral: The distinctive role of morality in social judgment. Social Cognition, 32, 397-408. doi:10.1521/soco.2014.32.4.397

Brems

Wagner

(1994). Blame of victim and perpetrator in rape versus theft. The Journal of Social Psychology, 134, 363-374. doi:10.1080/00224545.1994.9711741

10.

Cahoon

D. D.

Edmonds

E. M.

(1989). Male–female estimates of opposite-sex first impressions concerning females’ clothing styles. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 27, 280-281. doi:10.3758/BF03334607

11.

Chapleau

K. M.

Oswald

D. L.

Russell

B. L.

(2007). How ambivalent sexism toward women and men support rape myth acceptance. Sex Roles, 57, 131-136. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9196-2

12.

Cikara

Eberhardt

J. L.

Fiske

S. T.

(2010). From agents to objects: Sexist attitudes and neural responses to sexualized targets. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23, 540-551. doi:10.1162/jocn.2010. 21497

13.

Cortina

L. M.

Magley

V. J.

(2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation: Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 8, 247-265.

14.

Ellemers

Pagliaro

Barreto

(2013). Morality and behavioural regulation in groups: A social identity approach. European Review of Social Psychology, 24, 160-193. doi:10.1080/10463283.2013.841490

15.

European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights. (2014). Violence against women: An EU-wide survey. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union.

16.

Galdi

Maass

Cadinu

(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

17.

Galdi

Maass

Cadinu

(2017). Defending the victim of sexual harassment: The influence of civil courage and media exposure. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 338-351. doi:10.1177/0361684317709770

18.

Gervais

S. J.

Vescio

T. K.

Maass

Förster

Suitner

(2012). Seeing women as objects: The sexual body part recognition bias. European Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 743-753. doi:10.1002/ ejsp.1890

19.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491

20.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21(1), 119-135.

21.

Glick

Fiske

S. T.

(1999). The Ambivalence Toward Men Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1999.tb00379.x

22.

Glick

Larsen

Johnson

Branstiter

(2005). Evaluations of sexy women in low- and high-status jobs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 29, 389-395. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.2005.00238.x

23.

Gray

Knobe

Sheskin

Bloom

Barrett

L. F.

(2011). More than a body: Mind perception and the nature of objectification. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 1207-1220. doi:10.1037/a0025883

24.

Gray

Wegner

D. M.

(2009). Moral typecasting: Divergent perceptions of moral agents and moral patients. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 505-520. doi:10.1037/a0013748

25.

Grubb

A. R.

Harrower

(2009). Understanding attribution of blame in cases of rape: An analysis of participant gender, type of rape and perceived similarity to the victim. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 15, 63-81. doi:10.1080/13552600802641649

26.

Hae-kyong

Ellinger

A. E.

Hadjimarcou

Traichal

P. A.

(2000). Consumer concern, knowledge, belief, and attitude toward renewable energy: An application of the reasoned action theory. Psychology & Marketing, 17, 449-468. doi:10.1002/(SICI)1520-6793(200006)17:6<449::AID-MAR2>3.0.CO;2-8

27.

Hansen

C. H.

Hansen

R. D.

(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

28.

Hayes

A. F.

(2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new millennium. Communication Monographs, 76, 408-420. doi:10.1080/03637750903310360

29.

Heflick

Goldenberg

(2009). Objectifying Sarah Palin: Evidence that objectification causes women to be perceived as less competent and less fully human. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 598-601. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.02.008

30.

Heflick

Goldenberg

Cooper

Puvia

(2011). From women to objects: Appearance focus, target gender, and perceptions of warmth, morality and competence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 572-581. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.12.020

31.

Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT). (2010). Le molestie sessuali [Sexual Harassment]. Roma: Author.

32.

Johnson

K. K. P.

Workman

J. E.

(1994). Blaming the victim: Attributions concerning sexual harassment based on clothing, just-world belief, and sex of subject. Home Economics Research Journal, 22, 382-400. doi:10.1177/0046777494224002

33.

Jost

J. T.

Banaji

M. 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

34.

Kay

A. C.

Jost

J. T.

(2014). Theoretical integration in motivational science: System justification as one of many “autonomous motivational structures.” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 37, 146-147. doi:10.1017/S0140525X13002057

35.

Knapp

D. E.

Faley

R. H.

Ekeberg

S. E.

Dubois

C. L. Z.

(1997). Determinants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual framework. Academy of Management Review, 22, 687-729. doi:10.2307/259410

36.

Lazarus

R. S.

Folkman

(1984). Stress, appraisal and coping. New York, NY: Springer.

37.

Leach

C. W.

Ellemers

Barreto

(2007). Group virtue: The importance of morality (vs. competence and sociability) in the positive evaluation of in-groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 234-249. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.93.2.234

38.

Levant

R. F.

Smalley

K. B.

Aupont

House

A. T.

Richmond

Noronha

(2007). Initial validation of the Male Role Norms Inventory-Revised (MRNI-R). The Journal of Men’s Studies, 15, 83-100. doi:10.3149/jms.1501.83

39.

Loughnan

Haslam

Murnane

Vaes

Reynolds

Suitner

(2010). Objectification leads to depersonalization: The denial of mind and moral concern to objectified others. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 709-717. doi:10.1002/ejsp.755

40.

Loughnan

Pacilli

M. G.

(2014). Seeing (and treating) others as sexual objects: Toward a more complete mapping of sexual objectification. Testing, Pyschometrics, Methodology in Applied Psychology, 21, 309-325. doi:10.4473/TPM21.3.6

41.

Loughnan

Pina

Vasquez

E. A.

Puvia

(2013). Sexual objectification increases rape victim blame and decreases perceived suffering. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 455-461. doi:10.1177/0361684313485718

42.

McDonald

(2012). Workplace sexual harassment 30 years on: A review of the literature. International Journal of Management Reviews, 14, 1-17. doi:10. 1111/j.1468-2370.2011.00300.x

43.

O’Leary-Kelly

A. M.

Paetzold

R. L.

Griffin

R. W.

(2000). Sexual harassment as aggressive behavior: An actor- based perspective. Academy of Management Review, 25, 372-388.

44.

Pacilli

M. G.

Pagliaro

Loughnan

Gramazio

Spaccatini

Baldry

A. C.

(2017). Sexualization reduces helping intentions towards female victims of intimate partner violence through mediation of moral patiency. British Journal of Social Psychology, 56, 293-313. doi:10.1111/bjso.12169

45.

Roth

P. L.

Bobko

Van Iddekinge

C. H.

Thatcher

J. B.

(2016). Social media in employee-selection-related decisions: A research agenda for uncharted territory. Journal of Management, 42, 269-298. doi:10.1177/0149206313503018

46.

Sutton

(1998). Predicting and explaining intentions and behavior: How well are we doing? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 1317-1338. doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1998.tb01679.x

47.

Vaes

Paladino

Puvia

(2011). Are sexualized women complete human beings? Why men and women dehumanize sexually objectified women. European Journal of Social Psychology, 41, 774-785. doi:10.1002/ejsp.824

48.

Van Der Heide

D’Angelo

J. D.

Schumaker

E. M

. (2012). The effects of verbal versus photographic self-presentation on impression formation in Facebook. Journal of Communication, 62, 98-116. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01617.x

49.

Viki

G. T.

Abrams

(2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289-293. doi:10.1023/A:1021342912248

50.

Viki

G. T.

Abrams

Hutchison

(2003). The “true” romantic: Benevolent sexism and paternalistic chivalry. Sex Roles, 49, 533-537. doi:10.1023/A:1025888824749

51.

Wasti

S. A.

Cortina

L. M.

(2002). Coping in context: Sociocultural determinants of responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 394-405. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.83.2.394

52.

Weller

(1992). Why is date rape so hard to prove? Health, 6, 62-65.

53.

Willness

C. R.

Steel

Lee

(2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60, 127-162. doi:10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x

54.

Zanardo

(2010). Il corpo delle donne [The body of women]. Milano, Italy: Feltrinelli.