Double Victimization in the Workplace: Why Observers Condemn Passive Victims of 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
Five studies explore observers' condemnation of passive victims. Studies 1 and 2 examine the role of observers' behavioral forecasts in condemning passive victims of sexual harassment. Observers generally predicted that they would engage in greater confrontation than victims typically do. More importantly, the more confrontation participants predicted they would engage in, the more they condemned the passive victim, and the less willing they were to recommend the victim for a job and to work with her. Study 3 identifies the failure to consider important motivations likely experienced by victims—and that contribute to their passivity—as an important driver of behavioral forecasting errors. Having forecasters reflect on motivations normally experienced but not typically forecast produced behavioral predictions that were more consistent with the actual passive behavior of sexual harassment victims. Studies 4 and 5 reduce condemnation of passive sexual harassment victims by highlighting important motivations likely experienced by those victims (Study 4) and by having participants recall a past experience of not acting when being intimidated in the workplace, a situation related but distinct from sexual harassment (Study 5). 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.
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 | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.006 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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