Bystander intervention continues to be an impor-tant emerging area of prevention and more work is needed to fullyunderstand its impact on SH.
The Bystander Effect reminded me of the quote earlier of thinking that I would act a certain way but would actually not act in that way.
Aggressive, overbearing, and exploitive behaviors would fall intothe domain of the abuse of power.
If I am interpreting this quote right, the writers are saying that SH is more about aggression and power than it is about seduction.
One condition that sets the stage for preventing SH is morebroadly reducing violence in the workplace.
Attacking the generality of violence makes sense that it works to reduce SH. Reading this sentence does make me a bit sad that grown adults still need to be taught how to not be violent.
Whileno student charged the professor with SH, the professor was firedfor violating LSUs SH policy which prohibits “unwelcome verbal,visual, or physical behavior of a sexual nature” and that “harass-ment does not have to include intent to harm, be directed at aspecific target, or involve repeated incidents” (Creeley, 2016).
Reading this reminded me of a similar situation that happened at my former workplace. I was not physically there and only heard the story later. I had thought what my co-worker had said was inappropriate but had never thought about it falling under the SH category.
Nevertheless, researchers have found that it is not the em-ployee’s perception of the practices as much as it is the per-ception of manager’s intentions that impact the employee’sreaction to the practices (Aryee, Walumbwa, Seidu, & Otaye,2012)
This fact stood out to me. I can imagine how hard it would be to feel safe in the work place from SH when not knowing how the manager in charge felt about that subject.
Training should also provide insights into how individuals arelikely to incorrectly predict how they would react in a SH situation.
I think that this statement is interesting because I did not know how common it was to incorrectly judge what action you would do in a given situation. I had definitely experienced this before and it is interesting to know that it happens a majority of the time for most people.
Organizational costs of SHentail losing quality employees, lost business because of tarnishedorganizational reputations, and lost productivity as victims of SHare less likely fully engages at work
In this section I think that they are using passive voice. I have found that the authors tend to use active and passive voice throughout paragraphs.
Barling, Rogers, and Kelloway (2001)foundthat SH in the workplace when studying health care professionalsin individual clients homes resulted in fear, negative mood, andperceived injustice that lead to lower affective commitment andenhanced withdrawal intentions, poor interpersonal job perfor-mance, greater neglect, and cognitive difficulties
This is a strong and unique point that I had not thought about. I can imagine it would be scary getting sexually harassed in a clients home which can be a more private space.
found that men who engaged in feminist activism weremore likely to experience SH in the workplace.
Some of this section is just a bit unclear to me. What definition of SH are they referring to here? And what types of people are sexually harassing them?
Further, most studies indicatethat men who experience SH do not find SH experiences as anxietyprovoking, nor do they see it as bothersome, stressful or upsettingas women (Berdahl, Magley, & Waldo, 1996; Cortina & Berdahl,2008)
I think that it is deeply ingrained sexism that affects this because women are raised their whole lives to feel vulnerable especially to men.
Thus, we analyze the more recent research to determine:where are we today in understanding SH in the workplace, how isSH defined today, what do we know about SH in the workplace,what future issues must be examined?
The writers continue to use present tense.
Clearly, the workplace is compriseof an older more educated population, with more females makingup the workforce, especially women over 40.
These facts all come together in the end to show possibly why the number of SH incident reports have lowered.
Notably,Cardinale (2013)contends the frequencyof males in the workplace experiencing harassment has not likelyincreased, rather males in the workplace are simply more willingto file complaints given the reduced stigma surrounding malesmaking complaints
I think that this is important information when added to the facts of increased males filing about SH because it adds more insight to why that might be happening.
.
So far, the writing style has been very concise and organized which has given the article and overall scholarly feel.
The reasoning is that the termsexual harassment is associated with sexual desire and not allincidents are a derived from sexual desire, many incidents aredriven by power or identify based concerns (Berdahl & Raver,2010;Leskinen, Cortina, & Kabat, 2011).
This is a key concept that I had not thought about but when it is mentioned, makes a ton of sense.
“more intense yet less frequent harmful experiences (e.g., sexualcoercion and unwanted sexual attention) and less intense but morefrequent harmful experiences (e.g., sexist organizational climateand gender harassment) had similar negative effects on women’swell-being.
The information in this quote shocked me because I would have thought that the less frequent but more intense SH encounters would have worse negative effects.
Fitzgerald and Hesson-McInnis (1989)provided evidence thatSH is multidimensional and that two dimensions—type and sever-ity, are needed to represent the phenomena.Fitzgerald, Gelfand,and Drasgow (1995)developed the widely used Sexual ExperienceQuestionnaire primarily based onTill’s (1980)five categories,designed to assess the level of SH in the workplace. General sexistremarks and or behavior (gender harassment) and inappropriatesexual advances (seductive behaviors) were by far the most com-monly reported situations (Fitzgerald et al., 1997).
The authors use many in-text citations but rarely use any quotes. I think this might show that they are skilled writers and can take in information and re-word it.
This view relies upon the women’ssubjective view of the experience
I like that this view is based on the victims interpretation of the events but I think that the definition should be open to all genders and not made explicitly female.
This last statementis important as in the United States, it is the employer who is heldresponsible for SH behaviors, whereas in other countries, individ-uals are held responsible for their actions.
I do think the employer has some accountability if SH by the perpetrator has been repeated several times but most of the responsibility should be on the individual who is choosing to do these actions.
A study conducted in Spain found that many SH victims did notsee the incident as unpleasant, but rather as inevitable (seeVali-ente, 1998as cited byMcDonald, 2012).
I find this point very unsettling that victims almost do not even see themselves as victims of SH and rather expect to happen and accept it when it does.
Almost 50 countries prohibit SH.
I find it shocking that only 50 countries have explicitly prohibited SH.
So much so that some suggest research-ers have spent more time researching the definition than thephenomena itself (McDonald, 2012).
I find it interesting that researchers have gone so in depth to just define sexual harassment and some have spent more time doing that than actually researching SH in general.
James Campbell QuickThe University of Texas at Arlington and The Universityof ManchesterM. Ann McFadyenThe University of Texas at Arlington
There are only two authors and they both share one institution.
While she is cautious in her interpretation of the datarecognizingthe limitations of the research method, she does con-clude likeDekker and Barling (1998)that there are both individualand organizational costs associated with gender harassment.
The writiers mention Piotrkowski's use of hedging to be cautious in her conclusions.
She aimed to use a more methodolog-ically sound approach beyond the typical method of the era thatrelied primarily on women’s self-reports, or even checklist for-mats.
The language used in this article is focused more on the subject at hand.
The results did indicate that SH and gender discriminationwas positively related to reports of increased nausea and head-aches. Hence, these are not just psychological concerns or issuesbut they do have somatic, physical consequences for womensubject to this category of abuse in the workplace.
Somatic disorders means that there is physical reaction to an emotional disturbance. This is one of the first concepts in the paper that has been clearly related to psychology.
First, the problem of SH is not a “woman’s problem.”They conclude that accumulating data suggest that workplace SHhas widespread negative consequences for employees and organi-zations alike. Second, a fair and firm policy with consequentialsanctions serves as a useful, importance preventive deterrent.
These are the two important findings from Dekker and Barling that can be used in a research paper later.
herefore,Dekker and Barling (1998)may have been on the leading wave ofthis issue and note that the 10 to 15 years leading up to 1998 sawSH become a major issue because of several converging factors,including media attention and the commonality of victim symp-toms to symptoms displayed by those experiencing other majorworkplace stressors
Dekker and Barling were ahead of their time by recognizing the growing issue of SA and SH on women and realizing how their symptoms were being over looked.
Clearly an incident of workplace rape is noaccident (Quick, McFadyen, & Nelson, 2014) and aggression inthe workplace is destructive (cf.,O Leary-Kelly, Griffin, & Glew,1996).
The authors used two in-text citations on material they did not previously know but did not quote.
In addition to what we know about SH, we focus attention onwhat we do not know and need to learn.
The article so far is written in present tense.
There appeared to be gender biasacross many reviews, though certainly not within each review.
This appears to be an example of hedging used to suggest that some reviews were biased but did not want to make a blanket statement about all of them.
We address 2 of the 3 definitional approaches. We consider the broad, negative consequencesfor organizations and for individual victims.
Signposting is used here to describe what the academic article will cover.