When you purchase through links on our site , we may earn an affiliate commission . Here ’s how it puzzle out .
When a sexual torment casing hits the news , people often " blame the dupe , " indicate that the harassed person did n’t do enough to deflect the unwanted care . Now , new inquiry finds that this victim - blaming stems from the human tendency to overvalue oneself .
The more the great unwashed arrogate they ’ll brook up to a harasser , the more theyjudge womenwho do n’t , a new field of study line up . The haul ? Most evidence suggest mass do n’t confront their harrier , even if they consider they would .
Sexual harassment involves unwanted sexual advances in the workplace.
" They really incorrectly condemn them , " said study researcher Ann Tenbrunsel , a prof of line ethics at the University of Notre Dame . " The basis of their condemnation is that they themselves would have done something differently , and hazard are good they would not have . "
Overestimating ourselves
premature studies have found that masses strike they ’ll stand up for themselves more in a confrontation scenario than they really will , a psychological tendency called behavioural forecasting bias . In one 2001 study write in the Journal of Social Research , for example , researchers postulate woman what they ’d do if they were ask sexually inappropriate questions during a caper interview . They all responded that they ’d tell the interviewer off , report him or get up and go forth . However , in an experiment that actually expose woman to sexual torment in a false job audience , not a single woman confronted or report her harrier . [ 6 Ways Sexual Harassment Damages Women ’s Health ]
When you imagine standing up to a sexual yobo , your main focus is on fighting back , said Kristina Diekmann , a professor of stage business moral principle at the University of Utah and a co - research worker on the study . In a real job audience , however , other motivations become more important : avoiding an uncomfortable encounter , get along with others , getting the job .
" They ’re not call up about convey action , they ’re recall about just start through this interview and getting the caper , " Diekmann enjoin LiveScience .
blame the victim
To find out whether this overestimate preconception influences how citizenry viewvictims of intimate harassment , Diekmann , Tenbrunsel and their colleagues conducted a series of five closely related experiment . In the first , they had 47 female undergrad read a short scenario about a woman being question for a business . During the interview , the male person interviewerasks unfitting questions , include whether the woman has a boyfriend and whether she thinks it ’s of import for women to wear bra to work .
The undergrads were asked what they ’d do in that scenario . All told , 83 percentage said they ’d do something confrontational , whether it was get up and walk out , report the interviewer or refusing to answer the inquiry . Notably , the more women were certain that they ’d act this mode , the more they excoriate the woman in the scenario for taking the harassment quietly .
In a second , online discipline with 81 women of more varied ages , the research worker establish the same results . They also teach that the more confrontational a woman imagined herself to be in the torment scenario , the less uncoerced she ’d be to say she ’d want to work with the passive woman from the vignette .
Reducing judgment
Next , the researchers look for ways to reduce citizenry ’s bias and judgment . They first give 59 distaff undergrads the same harassment history to interpret , but require a third of them to first chew over on themotivation to get hiredduring a job consultation . Another third were asked to think about how important it might be to get along with a problem interviewer . The final third were give no direction prior to reading .
Sure enough , force people to think about their in - the - minute motivations as a job hunter cut down their likeliness of assuming they ’d act confrontational in the sexual - harassment scenario . A come after - up bailiwick with 52 dissimilar distaff undergrads found the same , and also break that thinking about these motivations increase sympathy and decreased judicial decision of the passive char in the level .
at last , the researchers acquit an online study of 101 cleaning woman , this meter asking them to think about a scenario in which they ’d beenintimidated in the workplacebefore show the vignette . Putting themselves in the dupe ’s shoes in that way also reduced judgement of the intimate harassment victim . [ The 10 Most Destructive Human Behaviors ]
How to fight back
The findings hint at how to help intimate - torment victims get support from their atomic number 27 - workers , Tenbrunsel said . If people stop and think about their own actions realistically , they ’re less potential to condemn a dupe who suffers in quiet .
" It ’s not just infer the reaction — certainly compassion is a great end goal of that — but it ’s also to direct our attention in ways that are going to bring down the behaviour in the first place , " Tenbrunsel said . In other words , she trust these sorts of thought exercises will encourage people tocondemn the harasser , not the harassee .
The findings also volunteer help to people who ’d like to live up to their imaginary , harasser - face selves , Diekmann said . First , you have to realize that you ’re unlikely to spontaneously respond the take - no - prisoners way you think you will , she say . Next , you have to plan and prepare , rehearsing what you desire to do just as you would rehearse fire drill in case of a real emergency .
" You first have to see it and you have to understand the consequences , " Diekmann said . " Then you’re able to be after and set up for it . "
