Comparing victim attributions and outcomes for workplace aggression and sexual harassment.
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In 2 studies, we investigated victim attributions (Study 1) and outcomes (Study 2) for workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Drawing on social categorization theory, we argue that victims of workplace aggression and sexual harassment may make different attributions about their mistreatment. In Study 1, we investigated victim attributions in an experimental study. We hypothesized that victims of sexual harassment are more likely than victims of workplace aggression to depersonalize their mistreatment and attribute blame to the perpetrator or the perpetrator's attitudes toward their gender. In contrast, victims of workplace aggression are more likely than victims of sexual harassment to personalize the mistreatment and make internal attributions. Results supported our hypotheses. On the basis of differential attributions for these 2 types of mistreatment, we argue that victims of workplace aggression may experience stronger adverse outcomes than victims of sexual harassment. In Study 2, we compared meta-analytically the attitudinal, behavioral, and health outcomes of workplace aggression and sexual harassment. Negative outcomes of workplace aggression were stronger in magnitude than those of sexual harassment for 6 of the 8 outcome variables. Implications and future directions are discussed.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it