Behind the screen: The perception–reality gap in cybersexual harassment between remote coworkers

Data collection

To address our research questions, we recruited 30 participants for one-on-one interviews via Zoom. While we initially utilized our personal social networks for recruitment, to maintain objectivity and minimize potential biases, these interviews were conducted by the researcher who was less closely acquainted with each respective participant. Furthermore, to ensure a diverse sample, our recruitment efforts were significantly expanded through social media platforms and snowball sampling (participant referrals). This approach allowed us to reach a broader demographic and professional spectrum, as reflected in the diverse age range, gender distribution, and industry sectors of our participants. Our eligibility criteria included being 18 or older, working remotely for at least 75% of regularly scheduled work hours, and using ICTs daily for work-related communication. 60% of our sample identified as female (n = 18) and 40% identified as male (n = 12). Participants’ ages ranged from 20 to 63 years old (M = 33.4 years). Much of our sample identified as white (56.67%), followed by Asian (16.67%), Latinx (16.67%), mixed race (6.67%), and Indian (3.33%). Participants represented a total of 16 different industry sectors, including education, healthcare and pharmaceuticals, high-tech, research, and financial services. They consisted of a mix of lower level employees, middle and top managers (See Table 1). Participants did not have to have firsthand experiences with CSH to participate; however, 36.67% (n = 11) of our participants had personally experienced CSH and 73.33% (n = 22) had either experienced or witnessed CSH or face-to-face sexual harassment. Participants most frequently referenced using digital platforms such as email, chat applications, like those housed in Microsoft Teams, ESM such as Slack, and personal social media platforms such as Instagram and Twitter for work-related communication and interactions.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 1.

Participant demographics and occupational background.

Participant ID	Sex	Age	Industry	Role
1	Male	24	Lumber	Wildlife Technician
2	Male	56	High-Tech	CEO
3	Female	63	High-Tech	Regional Sales Manager
4	Female	20	Communications	Social Media Coordinator
5	Female	25	Insurance	Insurance Specialist
6	Female	20	Fitness	Climbing Instructor
7	Male	55	Water and Waste	Manager
8	Female	53	Insurance	Manager
9	Female	25	Healthcare	Financial Counselor
10	Female	26	Healthcare	Manager
11	Female	25	Manufacturing	Manager
12	Female	25	Research	Senior Program Assistant
13	Female	28	Higher Education	Recruitment Lead
14	Female	61	K-12 Education	Admin. Support Coordinator
15	Female	31	Higher Education	Grant Coordinator
16	Female	28	Higher Education	Grant Analyst
17	Male	28	High-Tech	Manager
18	Female	25	Entertainment	Attorney
19	Female	28	Financial Services	Retirement Planning
20	Female	55	High-Tech	HR Administrator
21	Female	53	Higher Education	Graduate Coordinator
22	Female	27	Healthcare	Clinical Researcher
23	Male	28	Financial Services	Loan Agent
24	Male	27	Healthcare	Manager
25	Male	33	Financial Services	Loan Agent
26	Male	26	Defense	Engineer
27	Male	25	Healthcare	Communications Manager
28	Male	25	Nonprofit	Administrative Manager
29	Male	24	Pharmaceuticals	Biochemist
30	Male	28	Higher Education	Graduate Teaching Assistant

Participants received digital consent forms, agreeing to take part in a semi-structured (Kvale, 1996) Zoom interview about remote work and CSH and were compensated $10 upon completion. Interviews ranged from 30 to 90 minutes and were audio recorded using Zoom and later transcribed verbatim and de-identified by trained research assistants. Completed transcripts, which produced 533 pages of double-spaced data, were uploaded to Atlas.ti for analysis.

As new information emerged, we generated three iterations of the interview protocol. The initial set of interviews focused broadly on definitions of CSH among remote workers. The questions were designed to explore general perceptions and experiences without leading the participants. As we analyzed the data from the first iteration, certain themes and nuances began to emerge, particularly regarding the role of technology in facilitating or mitigating CSH. This led us to modify our interview questions to probe more deeply into the technological aspects, such as specific ICTs used and their perceived impact on harassment dynamics. In the final iteration, we incorporated insights gained from the first two rounds to focus on the strategic responses of remote workers to CSH. This included questions about reporting mechanisms, support systems, and personal coping strategies. This iteration was crucial in understanding not just the occurrence of CSH, but also how individuals navigate these challenges.

To maintain consistency across the three iterations and a roughly equivalent set of data points across participants, we asked all participants the same demographic questions, to define CSH, compare CSH and face-to-face sexual harassment, and to discuss how they perceived technology to affect sexual harassment. In addition, across all iterations, our final question asked participants to share any of their own experiences of CSH. The first iteration focused on identifying and understanding perceptions of various behaviors as CSH. We included scenarios based on established cases of CSH, prompting participants to reflect on and categorize these behaviors. This phase was crucial in establishing a baseline understanding of CSH from the participants’ perspective. The second iteration aimed to explore the technological context of CSH. We delved into the specific platforms and communication tools used in remote work settings, examining how these technologies might facilitate or mitigate harassment. This iteration provided insights into the role of technology in the dynamics of CSH. The final iteration concentrated on the interpersonal dynamics and boundary management within remote work environments. Questions in this phase probed into the interactions between coworkers on both professional and personal levels, particularly in the context of social media use. This helped us understand how boundaries are maintained or blurred in remote workspaces and how this impacts experiences of CSH.

Data analysis

In our study, we employed grounded theory methodology, which involves the development of theory through the systematic gathering and analysis of data (Strauss and Corbin, 1998). Employing a constant comparison approach, our data coding process was conducted in three stages: open, axial, and selective coding, as outlined by Strauss and Corbin (1998) and Tracy (2019). This process involved a team of seven trained undergraduate research assistants, working alongside the two lead researchers. Over a period of 5 weeks, we engaged in open coding, identifying and labeling emerging themes within the data. These coding sessions were collaborative, with the team meeting weekly to discuss and review the themes to ensure reliability and consistency in our interpretation. During the axial coding phase, we connected these themes to subcategories, focusing particularly on how participants were aware of and interacted with technological affordances (See Figure 1). This step was crucial in organizing the data more systematically and understanding the broader patterns of participant responses. In the final stage, selective coding, we integrated and refined these categories to construct a coherent narrative about the impact of technological affordances on CSH behaviors. This selective coding was instrumental in revealing the nuanced ways in which affordances influenced CSH, as well as how remote workers perceived and responded to these influences strategically. The iterative nature of this coding process, combined with the diverse perspectives of our mixed-gender coding team, enriched our analysis and deepened our understanding of how ICTs are comprehended and employed by remote workers within the context of CSH.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Data structure.

The role of affordances

In addressing our research questions, we found that participants were notably aware of two affordances: visibility, which refers to the possibility of making information and behavior visible or invisible to others through ICTs, and persistence, which refers to the possibility of messages being recordable, pervasive, or permanent (Treem and Leonardi, 2013). We found that visibility was implicated more in the perpetration of CSH, whereas persistence was more related to reporting behavior. These affordances serve as the basis for analyzing the relationship between perceptions, attitudes, and behaviors in the context of CSH. Interestingly, we found that despite their awareness of these affordances, participants’ imagined uses differed from actual occurrences which have been demonstrated in public cases of CSH, and how they reported their own projected behaviors. We call this disconnect between participants’ own perceptions and behaviors the perception–reality gap (See Table 2).

OPEN IN VIEWER

Table 2.

Sample quotes—underreporting by women.

Participant ID	Quote
3 Female, 63, Manager	“I don’t think I would say anything. I would handle it myself. [. . .] I—I don’t know maybe I would say something to my boss, but only if it persisted.”
8 Female, 53, Manager	“I don’t know. I’m contemplating because if it’s in writing it’s really easy to report because you got it, it’s right here, it’s in writing. But it’s probably easier to maybe blow up. I don’t know. So, I don’t . . . Can I say I don’t know?”
10 Female, 26, Manager	“No, it’s not very severe. It would be offensive if I was on the receiving end of it, but I wouldn’t report it probably.”
13 Female, 28, Lower Level	“It all is going to depend on the person on the receiving end. So that has happened to me I didn’t—like yes it was a type of harassment, but it stopped. You know what I mean so I feel like if it would’ve continued, I would’ve been like what the hell and I would’ve said something about it but the fact that it stopped at the very beginning made me not be inclined to do anything else about it.”
16 Female, 28, Lower Level	“I don’t know if that fear of being ostracized or seen differently or like you know, I don’t know if that’s going to, if that decreases [the likelihood of reporting] just because it’s happening in a cyber way, I feel like it, I mean I would assume it would mean more people would come forward and report but at the same time those repercussions of coming forward are still very real regardless.”
21 Female, 53, Lower Level	“I feel kind of sad, but I think that I have to admit that I’m more leaning towards, I would try to take care of it on my own, and I don’t think I would necessarily use the resources that I tell other people to use. It was much easier for me to tell someone else then actually apply it to myself.”

Visibility and the perpetration of CSH

In addressing RQ1 about how perceptions of technological affordances are related to the perpetration of CSH, we found that participants exhibited a clear awareness of the visibility provided by their work technologies. Participants described pre-meditated workarounds to avoid penalties when engaging in CSH on workplace technology, such as choosing media with low organizational visibility. In the interview protocol’s early iteration, we introduced examples from Ritter’s (2014) CSH scale to help clarify the concept for participants. This included asking whether viewing pornography on a work computer at home would be considered sexual harassment. Participant 2, (male, 56 years old, high-tech CEO), responded, “[. . .] definitely sexual harassment just because someone can see whatever you see.” He pointed out that despite the solitude of remote work or the perceived privacy of one’s home, such an action could still be visible to others within the organization, due to IT departments’ ability to access work computers remotely.

Similarly, when asked the same question, Participant 19 (female, 28 years old, lower level retirement financial planner) expanded on this false sense of aloneness involved in remote work, and despite this, her understanding and awareness of visibility.

Even though I’m working from home, and I could do whatever I want on my computer and no one can see me, if IT decided to mirror my desktop . . . they would see [the pornography], and then I’d be harassing that person.

Participant 19’s response also signifies an acute awareness of the visibility of work. She illustrates her understanding that, although remote work might instill a sense of privacy and isolation, actions taken on work devices are not inherently private. Her assertion that viewing explicit content could inadvertently result in the harassment of IT personnel who may need to access her desktop underlines a keen perception of how technology can mediate and transform behaviors and their implications in a remote work environment.

While participants acknowledged the visibility features inherent to workplace technology in remote work settings, they also discussed hypothetical situations where an offender would exploit specific channels to conduct CSH in a more concealed manner. These scenarios often involved the deliberate choice of communication platforms with lower organizational visibility, such as personal social media networks. Participant 23 (male, 28 years old, lower-level loan agent) exemplifies this:

[CSH] is far more likely to happen in Instagram direct messages [or] text messages. There are ways to get someone’s phone number through the company, so I would assume that’s happening on personal devices as opposed to [company] devices.

Participants’ views, like those of Participant 23, reflect a perceived tendency of perpetrators to use less monitored platforms to evade organizational scrutiny. However, this should not lead us to assume that workplace technologies are free of CSH. Believing that harassment is most likely to occur on non-work platforms overlooks the potential for misuse of workplace technology for such misconduct.

To probe this further, we asked others about what types of technologies perpetrators might use to enact CSH. Participant 21 (female, 53 years old, lower level graduate coordinator) asserted that she did not believe that perpetrators would utilize workplace technologies:

These types of people are calculated, and they would not use work technology . . . That’s kind of stupid. It can be through [direct messages], LinkedIn, Twitter . . . I mean, there’s so many different ways that people can plan it and work isn’t necessarily [going to] find out.

Echoing this sentiment, Participant 20 (female, 55 years old, human resources administrator) discussed how the use of personal social media, where coworkers often interacted, made CSH easier for the perpetrator by making the behavior invisible to organizational members other than the intended victim:

When you’re at work you’re amongst other people, they can see what’s happening. They may be a witness to something going on and they can help report it. But when you’re in cyberworld, who else is going to see? It’s between you and the other person.

Relating to earlier ideas regarding the complexity presented by social media, participants described how they imagined social media gave perpetrators of CSH control over the visibility of their actions. One unintended downside of using personal devices and platforms was that the decreased visibility reduced the possibility of bystander behavior by colleagues at work. These findings suggest that remote workers are aware of the high visibility of workplace technology, which makes them imagine CSH to be less likely to occur on workplace technology, and more likely to occur on personal platforms and devices. However, the belief among remote workers that people will not use workplace technology for CSH, a belief contradicted by various reported cases of workplace CSH in the media, can leave these workers vulnerable (Lapin and Coleman, 2020; Office of Enterprise Data and Analytics, 2022; Zilber, 2022).

Such an assumption might lead to a false sense of security within organizational spaces, potentially neglecting the importance of monitoring and regulating inappropriate behaviors on workplace platforms. Furthermore, it could lead to underreporting of CSH incidents that do occur on these platforms. Remote workers may wrongly believe that they are protected from CSH when using workplace technology, leading them to let their guard down at work. They may also fail to report any suspicious or inappropriate behavior that may occur on workplace platforms. Furthermore, the idea that workplace technology is less susceptible to CSH may also discourage organizations from implementing appropriate policies and procedures to prevent and respond to CSH incidents. This can further leave remote workers vulnerable and without a clear reporting process, which contributes to CSH going unreported.

Persistence and reporting of CSH

To address RQ2 we probed participants on their likelihood to report CSH. Most participants acknowledged that persistence of CSH behaviors provided more evidence for the incident and, in turn, allowed the victim to report it easily. Participant 8 (female, 53 years old, insurance manager) stated this idea simply by saying “if it’s in writing, it’s easy to report because you got it. It’s right here. It’s in writing.” Similarly, Participant 12 (female, 25 years old, lower-level senior program assistant) shared this sentiment and noted the degree to which a report was plausible when evidence could be produced:

There is kind of a paper trail that you can have and documentation . . . I think being able to have documentation is something that unfortunately is more palatable to a lot of people . . . than someone telling a memory or an experience.

The reference to “documentation” underscores the perceived importance of evidence in substantiating allegations of harassment. Furthermore, this participant notes that such documentation tends to be more “palatable” or convincing to many, compared to personal narratives or recollections of an incident.

In addition, Participant 14 (female, 61 years old, lower level administrative support coordinator) reiterated this idea and included the effects that sexual trauma may have on a victim’s willingness to report, but noted that the persistence afforded by ICTs may provide less invasive ways to report:

People are so shy or don’t want to say that something’s happened to them physically, like getting abused, or they’ve been stalked . . . But if there’s a picture of something that’s not appropriate, then you can say here you can deal with that.

This quote reflects the perception that ICTs allowed for nonverbal documentation that would speak for itself (such as a picture or other evidence), and that this would increase reporting of CSH as it provided an alternate means of reporting than requiring a reluctant victim to speak up. This perception that ICTs would serve to increase reporting of CSH was supported by many of our other participants who perceived that the persistence afforded by ICTs made incidents of CSH easier to report, more believable, and less invasive to come forward with.

However, despite the fact that participants clearly perceived the persistence of ICTs and its potential to promote reporting, we found that many of our female respondents were hesitant to report CSH themselves, as seen in the prior exemplar quotes. In many cases, the perceived efficacy of reporting and the anticipated consequences of reporting were two reasons provided for why some would downplay or choose not to report CSH despite the overwhelming persistence awareness demonstrated across the sample. Perceived efficacy in the voicing behavior literature refers to whether employees believe their feedback to the organization will have the intended effect (Bandura, 1994; Morrison, 2011, 2014). In the case of CSH reporting, the intended effect would typically be a form of punishment for the perpetrator and/or restitution for the victim of the incident. In addition, in past research, some commonly anticipated consequences of voicing critiques or casting accusations have included retaliation, having reduced work hours, or being assigned undesirable tasks (Cortina and Berdahl, 2008), in addition to interpersonal conflict with managers and other organizational members (Burris, 2012; Kassing, 1998).

As noted earlier, scholars studying workplace power dynamics have identified long-standing patterns in which marginalized and lower-level organizational members’ lack of power and voice, among other workplace inequalities, affect the way in which these employees engage in confrontation and reporting behaviors at work (Morrison et al., 2015; Prasad and Prasad, 1998). In line with these past findings, in our own findings we see that despite the persistent nature of CSH and the perceived ease of reporting it, junior and/or female employees were uncertain about reporting or simply elected not to report incidents of CSH because of real or perceived power and voice inequities. For example, Participant 5 (female, 25 years old, lower-level insurance specialist) clearly signaled her perceptions of organizational power distance as a junior employee, in the context of CSH:

[Cybersexual] harassment is mostly from supervisors and it’s more difficult to report because of that. If you try to report that [to] upper-level management, then there is a chance that they do not believe you because you are lower-level staff, and they have more trust in middle management.

Despite acknowledging the recordable evidence that was typically associated with CSH versus face-to-face sexual harassment, this employee did not feel efficacious in reporting an incident of CSH, especially if the harassment was being perpetrated by a supervisor or a more senior employee. Her perception was that because she was in a junior role, despite having evidence her report would be easily dismissed if it was contested by middle management. As a result, she stated that if she experienced CSH herself, she would be very unlikely to report it, citing a lack of voice and power as justification.

Beyond perceptions of low reporting efficacy, some participants gave clear examples from their own experiences as bystanders of sexual harassment cases within their own organizations which left them feeling like reporting CSH to their workplace was not helpful. For example, Participant 12 (female, 25 years old, lower level senior program assistant) described such an experience:

The way that I’ve seen [HR] handle things has been very dismissive. It’s been a lot of politics or moving people into different areas instead of addressing things and remedying power dynamics [. . .] I don’t think that if I were to report something that I would be satisfied with what would come of it.

Moreover, after taking a closer look, we found that this sentiment was not exclusive to young women. For example, Participant 21 (female, 53 years old, lower level graduate coordinator) also states she would not report CSH if it happened to her despite being highly aware of the reporting process and associated resources:

I feel kind of sad, but I think that I have to admit that I’m more leaning towards, I would try to take care of it on my own, and I don’t think I would necessarily use the resources that I tell other people to use. It was much easier for me to tell someone else then actually apply it to myself.

This lack of perceived efficacy in reporting, combined with concerns about potential consequences and the perceived ineffectiveness of organizational responses, contributes to the underreporting of CSH and sexual harassment in general. The quotes highlight how individuals’ decisions to report are shaped not only by the presence of evidence but also by their perceptions of their own agency within the organization’s power dynamics. These factors collectively create a perception–reality gap where evidence-based reporting may not necessarily lead to the desired outcomes due to broader systemic issues within the workplace.

Furthermore, anticipated consequences of reporting CSH led many participants to express a great deal of uncertainty about reporting an incident, despite its recordability. For example, Participant 16 (female, 28 years old, lower level grant analyst) mentioned this when she stated:

I don’t know if that fear of being ostracized or seen differently, if that decreases [the likelihood of reporting] just because it’s happening in a cyber way. I would assume it would mean more people would come forward and report but at the same time those repercussions of coming forward are still very real.

While it could be assumed that the persistence afforded by computer-mediated communication and the clear perception of this affordance by both perpetrators and victims would be enough to deter the process of CSH, this does not appear to be the case. Not only did affordance awareness (neither visibility nor persistence) not deter perpetrators from engaging in CSH, but it likewise did not empower victims to report despite having tangible evidence. As in face-to-face sexual harassment, power dynamics and inequalities continue to be key factors that transcend the action possibilities of technology. Even with concrete evidence of harassment, employees who lack power and voice—typically junior and female employees—were less likely to submit reports of CSH to their organizations due to low reporting efficacy and anticipated negative consequences at the interpersonal and organizational levels.

Importantly, these findings underscore the perception–reality gap in technological affordances around CSH: while they are perceived to be tools for reporting and combatting harassment, victims and bystanders are not acting on these perceptions and continue to be deterred from reporting due to the perceived ramifications of such visibility and persistence. This complexity, previously underexplored, adds a fresh perspective to our understanding of the role of ICT affordances in CSH incidents and calls for a more nuanced approach in tackling workplace CSH.

Theoretical implications

This research has several theoretical implications that contribute to our understanding of CSH in remote work environments and the role of technological affordances. First, the study highlights the perception–reality gap in the utilization of technological affordances. While prior studies (e.g. Costa, 2018; Darling-Wolf, 2021; Nagy and Neff, 2015) have advanced our understanding of how the use and understanding of technological affordances may be shaped by social and cultural contexts, the present study contributes new insights into how these affordances function within the specific organizational contexts of remote work. For instance, our findings reveal a significant perception–reality gap in the application of technological affordances for combating CSH, such as increased visibility and persistence, which were frequently perceived to deter inappropriate behaviors through their potential for monitoring and recording interactions. Despite these theoretical capabilities, which were actively perceived by our participants, the interview findings reveal that these affordances may not effectively deter the perpetration of CSH nor encourage reporting of incidents in practice. Furthermore, our study goes beyond the regional, cultural, and social considerations typically emphasized in the literature by delving into the intricate dynamics of organizational power and structural inequalities. We found that power relations within the workplace have the potential to shape the perception and utilization of technological affordances. For example, despite the theoretical potential for digital tools to enhance visibility and persistence in remote settings, employees reported hesitating to utilize these tools due to fears of reprisal or professional backlash, especially when the harasser holds a position of authority and/or the victim hold a subordinate position. This focus on organizational context allows our study to provide a more detailed exploration of how specific internal dynamics inhibit the effective use of technological tools designed to mitigate CSH. By doing so, we extend the theoretical discussion of affordances to include the critical role of internal workplace factors, enriching the discourse on how digital interactions are mediated not just by cultural and social contexts but also by the very structures of the organizations within which these technologies are deployed.

The study further sheds light on the complexities of visibility and persistence as technological affordances in the context of CSH. Participants were aware of the visibility and recordability of behaviors facilitated by workplace technologies, yet they downplayed the role of these technologies as platforms for CSH. This finding challenges the assumption that technological affordances alone can act as a deterrent for inappropriate behavior or an incentive for reporting. This underscores the limitations of technological affordances in addressing complex social issues such as CSH and draws attention to broader social and structural factors that have a bigger impact on the perpetration and reporting of CSH.

To this end, the research emphasizes the importance of power dynamics and structural inequalities in shaping reporting behaviors and outcomes. More vulnerable employees—including both junior women and women in management positions—demonstrated a hesitancy to report CSH due to a perceived lack of power and voice within the organization. This finding aligns with previous research on power differentials and their impact on reporting behaviors (e.g. Barmes, 2022; Malvini Redden and Scarduzio, 2024; Morganson and Major, 2014; Scarduzio et al., 2019, 2021). Not only is it risky for vulnerable employees to name and identify abuses of power and challenge inequalities and hierarchies, but reporting formal complaints such as CSH is often complicated by the labyrinthine nature of the system (Ahmed, 2021). This suggests that theoretical frameworks should consider the nuanced interplay between visibility, persistence, power dynamics, and reporting behaviors and take a structural approach to develop a more comprehensive understanding of how affordances combine with broader institutional dynamics to shape CSH experiences and outcomes.

Finally, the research highlights the need for comprehensive measures to address CSH in digital workplaces. The perception–reality gap and the underreporting of CSH incidents indicate that current policies and interventions may not effectively address the unique challenges of remote work environments. Theoretical frameworks should guide the development of evidence-based interventions that empower victims, promote a culture of reporting, and address the power dynamics and structural inequalities that contribute to underreporting.

Overall, this research contributes to the theoretical understanding of CSH by examining the perception–reality gap in the utilization of technological affordances, emphasizing the role of power dynamics, and highlighting the need for comprehensive measures to address CSH in remote work environments. By incorporating these insights into theoretical frameworks, researchers can advance our understanding of CSH and inform the development of effective strategies to prevent and address this issue.

Pragmatic implications

The findings of this study offer several pragmatic implications that are vital for organizations, policymakers, workers, and managers in addressing CSH in remote work environments. For workers, it is crucial to provide education on the risks and consequences of CSH. In past research, employees have suggested employers should provide sexual harassment training, monitor employees’ social media accounts, encourage employees not to follow each other on social media, and have strict consequences for CSH (Scarduzio et al., 2019). Training programs should focus on raising awareness, understanding the potential impacts, and encouraging workers to recognize, report, and maintain professional boundaries in digital communications. Managers play a pivotal role in this ecosystem. They need to be equipped with the skills to recognize signs of CSH, respond supportively to victims, understand the underpinning power dynamics, and foster a culture of respect and inclusivity in digital workspaces. Scarduzio et al. (2021) found that social support is a driving factor for CSH reporting. Thus, managers should be cognizant of the limitations of remote work, and should be mindful to still schedule face time with their subordinates in order to develop trusting relationships that encourage disclosures of CSH.

At the organizational level, comprehensive policies specifically targeting CSH in digital workplaces are essential. These policies should include clear guidelines, confidential reporting mechanisms to empower victims and bystanders, and sensitivity to the power dynamics and structural inequalities that contribute to underreporting. Furthermore, technological interventions are necessary to detect and prevent CSH. This includes monitoring employee communications, automated reporting mechanisms, and fostering a culture of accountability. In addition, with the increasing prevalence of remote work, organizations should consider providing and mandating workplace devices for home use, thus reducing reliance on unmonitored personal technologies. Collectively, these steps can bridge the perception–reality gap, resulting in a workforce that is better informed and equipped to recognize, report, and prevent CSH incidents in remote work settings.

Limitations and future research

While our study provides valuable insights into the perceptions of technological affordances and their influence on CSH in remote work environments, it is important to acknowledge the limitations of our research. Our predominantly white, heterosexual, US-based sample hindered our ability to examine the intersectionality of factors like race, gender, sexuality, culture, and their relationship with CSH (Cortina and Berdahl, 2008). In addition, we could not explore unique challenges marginalized groups might face. The study’s US-centric focus also overlooked cross-cultural differences in perceptions and experiences of CSH. Future research should diversify samples to better understand the impact of technological affordances on CSH among marginalized groups and across cultures.

Furthermore, our study focused on perceptions, not actual behaviors or motivations, which could have offered a more complete understanding of how technology affects CSH perpetration and reporting. Future research should use a mixed-methods approach to delve into perceptions, behaviors, and the use of digital whistleblower hotlines, which aim to increase prohibitive voicing (Mao and DeAndrea, 2019). Extant literature supports that when employees do plan to voice concerns or critiques of their organization, they have preferences over which media to utilize (Ean, 2010; Ruck and Welch, 2012). This suggests that they are aware of technological affordances and the related consequences of use. Examining existing whistleblowing platforms through the lens of affordance awareness may serve as a fruitful avenue for determining how to increase CSH reporting in the workplace.