A new study co-written by a University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign expert who studies occupational stress and employee well-being sheds light on the different profiles of intervention behaviors bystanders may exhibit when they witness workplace sexual harassment.
The paper identifies three distinct types of bystander intervention profiles, offering insights for workplace sexual assault prevention programs and broader sexual harassment intervention efforts, says YoungAh Park, a professor of labor and employment relations at Illinois.
"Our research reframes how we think about bystander responses by showing that employees often use multiple tactics simultaneously, and their choices are shaped by both individual emotions and organizational culture," Park said.
The paper, published in the Journal of Applied Psychology, was co-written by Yijue Liang of George Mason University.
Rather than study whether bystanders take actions or not, the researchers analyzed survey data from three studies to see if bystanders combine various types of intervention behaviors to form different profiles. Diverging from typical variable-based approaches, the researchers employed "latent profile analysis" - a statistical method that identifies naturally occurring groups - to identify clusters of these behaviors and how they blend together.
The authors first developed and validated a new scale measuring five types of bystander behaviors ranging from "confronting" - that is, directly addressing the harasser - to "distracting," "supporting," "reporting" and "discussing." Based on these five intervention behaviors, three bystander intervention profiles emerged, ranging from "active intervention," and "low-risk intervention," to "no/limited intervention."
"We now have evidence that people don't fall into a single 'bystander' mold," Liang said. "When we studied how bystanders intervene when they witness or hear about a sexual harassment incident, they would actually combine multiple behaviors. Understanding these patterns can help us intervene more precisely and ultimately reduce harm in our workplaces."
From three large survey studies, they found that certain factors influenced which profile and behavior category employees fell into.
Anger, for example, led to more active behaviors, while empathy led to low-risk supportive behaviors. Overall organizational intolerance of harassment, as well as positive expectations that employee actions could reduce harassment, increased active interventions, according to the research.
"Social norms play a huge role in whether someone decides to step in," Liang said. "That means changing the culture of a workplace is just as important as building skills among employees."
Active interventions also led to greater gratitude from victims and positive responses from third parties.
"One way to encourage people to intervene in an active way is for the organization to establish a zero-tolerance policy for sexual harassment," Liang said. "That worked very well in encouraging action."
Low-risk interventions were associated with fewer risks but still offered support to the victim, while no intervention was linked to feelings of guilt and fewer positive social effects.
"When the aggression from the harasser is high and then someone intervenes, it prompts the highest gratitude from the victim, especially when you compare it to low-risk and limited intervention strategies," Liang said. "So we want to debunk the myth that active intervention isn't welcomed by the victim. But at the same time, we also need to acknowledge that it's the riskiest intervention strategy."
The findings have practical implications for designing workplace training and interventions that encourage more active and effective responses to sexual harassment, the authors said.
Liang and Park argue that by focusing on psychological profiles, workplaces can more effectively tailor training programs to meet people where they are.
"Traditional one-size-fits-all intervention programs may overlook the real psychological diversity among bystanders," Liang said. "This study shows that we need more targeted approaches if we want to move more bystanders into the 'active intervention' category."
"Bystander intervention is one of the most promising tools we have for workplace sexual harassment prevention," Park said. "But to be effective, we need to know what kinds of barriers and motivators people bring into those situations. We hope this research helps employers design smarter programs."
Liang said their research is a reminder that behavior change is complex but not impossible.
"Most bystanders want to do the right thing," she said. "We just have to make it easier, safer and more socially acceptable for them to do so."
