A new study reveals that using false predictions as benchmarks can lead us to condemn victims of sexual harassment who are passive and don't stand up on the face of such harassment.
Ann Tenbrunsel, professor of business ethics at the University of Notre Dame, and researchers from the University of Utah and Brigham Young and Northwestern Universities conducted five studies that explored observers' condemnation of passive victims.
Pointing to the 1991 Senate confirmation hearings for Clarence Thomas' appointment to the Supreme Court, the researchers note that Anita Hill testified she had been sexually harassed by Thomas during his tenure as head of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission.
Far from being an isolated incident, the case illustrates a trend that prevails even today.
"If we can increase the accuracy of our predictions and realize we won't stand up for ourselves as often as we would like to think, we will be less condemning of other victims," Tenbrunsel said.
In the first two studies, observers predicted they would be more confrontational than victims typically are, and this led to greater judgment of other passive victims, including unwillingness to work with them and to recommend them for a job.
The third study identified the failure to consider what may motivate victims to be passive, and the final two studies reduced condemnation of passive sexual harassment victims by highlighting their likely motivations at the time of the harassment and by having participants recall a past experience of their own when they did not act in the face of intimidation in the workplace, a situation related to but distinct from sexual harassment.
The results from these studies add insights into the causes and consequences of victim condemnation and help explain why passivity in the face of harassment-the predominant response-is subject to so much scorn.
The study will be published in a forthcoming issue of Organization Science.