Content uploaded by Ho Kwan Cheung
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ho Kwan Cheung on Aug 15, 2020
Content may be subject to copyright.
COMMENTARY
Who else besides (White) women? The need for
representation in harassment training
Gabrielle C. Danna, Joel Hernandez, Bhindai Mahabir*, Dhanisha Nandigama, and
Ho Kwan Cheung
University at Albany, State University of New York
*Corresponding author. Email: kmahabir@albany.edu
Hayes et al. (2020) raised the million-dollar question in the midst of the #metoo movement: Why
has antidiscrimination/harassment training to date been mostly ineffective? They contended that
this is likely a reflection of misalignment among training content, goals, and effectiveness criteria.
They proposed adopting novel perspectives beyond traditional applied psychology theories
to refocus both research and practical efforts to tackle this all-important issue. Although we
commend the vast array of perspectives and associated research questions raised by the authors,
one factor that also merits consideration is the degree to which existing antidiscrimination/
harassment training representatively and accurately reflects the daily occurrences in the work-
place. Specifically, we believe that current sexual harassment (SH) training often portrays these
issues to be gender specific (i.e., heterosexual men harassing heterosexual women), and such
misrepresentation is likely to impact trainees’attitudes and training transfer negatively. In this
commentary, we draw from intersectional research on SH and the training literature to argue that
current training should represent a more extensive set of minorities whose intersecting stigma-
tized identities make them especially vulnerable to SH. Furthermore, although we acknowledge
that SH is a specific manifestation of discrimination, we are focusing our discussion on SH because
this is often a separate category of training in both research literature and organizational settings
while operating under some of the similar mechanisms as discrimination.
Sexual harassment—who else besides (White) women?
The typical portrayal of SH tends to be heterosexual (and often White) women being harassed by
heterosexual men; hence, SH is primarily viewed as a women-specific and sexual-desire–driven
problem. Indeed, women make up a considerable portion of harassment victims, and they also
tend to report more cases of SH than men do (Quick & McFadyen, 2017). According to the
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, in 2011, 83.7% of the sexual harassment claims
were made by women (EEOC, n.d.). Additionally, survey work examining firefighters found
84.7% of women were treated differently because of their sex, and 30.2% of women experienced
sexual advances in the workplace (Hulett et al., 2008). However, this is an oversimplification of the
reality of the issue: Women are not the only gender being harassed. The intersection of one’s
gender with other stigmatized social identities (e.g., race, sexual orientation) can further exacer-
bate the degree to which he or she is harassed. Sex-based harassment (SBH), as proposed by
Berdahl (2007), is a more accurate, inclusive portrayal of the issue. Traditional SH tends to frame
The first four authors contributed equally to this article.
© Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Inc. 2020.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology (2020), 13, 208–212
doi:10.1017/iop.2020.38
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.38
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 100.4.199.9, on 28 Jul 2020 at 17:06:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
harassment as prompted by sexual desire; however, SBH frames harassment as based on the power
to protect one’s sex-based status and to withhold a standard of norms and behavior (Berdahl,
2007). SBH broadens the definition to include any behaviors of degradation based on an individ-
ual’s sex to display power and preserve social status (Berdahl, 2007), which captures an array of
potential harassment incidents affecting minority women, LGBT individuals, and men that we will
discuss below.
Because people are defined by a multitude of social identities, their experiences can significantly
differ if more than one of their identities is stigmatized (Crenshaw, 1991). Notably, minority
women may be particularly susceptible to harassment because of the “double jeopardy”posed
by their race and gender. Although research on SBH experienced by minority women to date
has been scarce, the limited evidence seems to support this notion. Research suggests that
Black women experience SBH more often than White women (Buchanan et al., 2009). More
so, Black women perceive cross-racial SBH (White man sexually harassing a Black woman) to
be more threatening and degrading than intraracial SBH (Black man sexually harassing a
Black woman; Berdahl & Moore, 2006; Bergman & Drasgow, 2003; Cortina et al., 1998; Kalof
et al., 2001). Collectively, this body of evidence suggests that not all women experience SBH
equally.
Another marginalized group that is particularly vulnerable to workplace SBH is the LGBT com-
munity. Although rarely studied, a few studies have found supporting evidence that LGBT indi-
viduals experience SBH and sexual assault more often than heterosexual individuals do, yet they
are not reported as often because of intrinsic stigma associated with their sexual orientation/
gender identity (Quick & McFadyen, 2017; Smith et al., 2016). LGBT individuals often experience
SBH early in their lives, starting at grade school and continuing into adulthood as they enter the
workforce (McFarland & Dupuis, 2001). Besides suffering from stereotyping and gender discrimi-
nation in mainstream society, nonheterosexual employees endure SBH and other types of mistreat-
ment even in “gay-friendly”workplaces (Giuffre et al., 2008). In addition to the fear of retaliation
and stigma associated with harassment that heterosexual people experience, LGBT employees must
be concerned with disclosure and discrimination specific to their sexual orientation/gender identity,
which often leads to detrimental effects on their mental health, workplace productivity, and job
satisfaction (Sears & Mallory, 2011).
Finally, even though the stereotypical portrayal of SBH puts heterosexual men in the harasser
position, statistics and research indicate that they can be victims of harassment as well. A
national study on sexual harassment and assault found that 43% of men have experienced some
form of sexual harassment at least once in their lifetime (“Measuring #MeToo”, 2019), and
such abuse is beyond the “good-natured horseplay”often used to justify same-sex harassment
among men (Alonso, 2018). Because SBH is a means to display power and dominance, harass-
ment incidents against men are usually attempts to reinforce standards of masculinity and exert
power (Berdahl, 2007). Despite its prevalence and equally detrimental effects, SBH against men
continues to be trivialized (Gutek, 1985) for several reasons. First, behaviors identified as har-
assing are generally perceived differently by men compared to women (Berdahl et al., 1996).
With greater emphasis on traditional masculinity and testing of one’s ability to endure hazing
rituals in many male-dominated organizations (Brodsky, 1976; Collinson, 1988), it is unortho-
dox for a man to report SH. Mainstream society often emphasizes heterosexual hypermascu-
linity and shuns male same-sex SBH (Stockdale et al., 1999). Accordingly, men experiencing
same-sex SBH suffer more severe consequences than men harassed by women (DuBois et al.,
1998) because reporting cases of same-sex SH is more likely to be seen as embarrassing as a
result of deviating from stereotypical manly behaviors. Altogether, contrary to the popular
notion of harassment, the provided evidence suggests that SBH affects more than just hetero-
sexual, White women. Next, we will examine the degree to which existing SBH training reflects
these nuances of the issues.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 209
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.38
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 100.4.199.9, on 28 Jul 2020 at 17:06:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Are organizations adapting with the time?
Given the complexity of organizational harassment issues and the need for greater inclusivity, are
organizations adapting their training programs to keep up? Based on Tippett’s(2018) overview of
SH training programs in organizations from 1980 to 2016, it appears training has mostly remained
unchanged over time, with only minor changes such as adding new legal terminology where
needed. According to Tippett, a typical SH training video includes an authority figure giving a
summary of the legal rules and offering advice on how to report cases of SBH, with an emphasis
on legal compliance rather than the nature and impact of SBH. One reason that organizations
have yet to update their SH training is because they prefer basic training that is easily recognizable
to their employees (Tippett, 2018). Companies are not incentivized to change their training
because SH training is provided to employees to protect employers from legal disputes (Tinkler,
2012).
According to a recent interdisciplinary review on SH training, SH training is reported to be
legally effective if it (a) meets minimum legal requirements for organization-provided SH training,
(b) reduces external SH legal claims filed against the company, (c) increases the organization’s
ability to defeat a claim successfully, and (d) reduces what the company is required to pay if
the claim is successful (Roehling & Huang, 2018). Given this information, it makes sense why
organizations are incentivized to do the legal minimum and implement only basic training.
Consequently, external vendors are left demotivated to provide updated material, knowing that
companies prefer conventional modules. These two factors play a part in explaining the stagnation
in the innovation of SH training.
Looking at SBH merely as a legal issue is an excessively narrow view. SBH is an ethical issue that
concerns social-sexual behavior at work (Bowes-Sperry & Powell, 1999), meaning its occurrence
(or lack thereof) depends heavily on a shared sense of moral norms by the organization. Perhaps
even more so than other types of task-based training, SBH training content needs to accurately
reflect the social reality of the issue beyond the vague legal definitions in order to gauge the atten-
tion of the trainees (i.e., regular employees). For example, California has recently adjusted its laws
for government-mandated SBH training to address harassment based on sexual orientation and
gender identity or expression, while also providing practical examples of these types of harassment
(“California Department of Fair Employment and Housing,”n.d.). We endorse this policy as it is a
sensible way to address the problem of diversity noninvasively. SBH training content should be
updated to include more minority representation to reflect the different manifestations of SBH.
Next, we will draw from training literature to explain how increasing the representation of SBH
training can facilitate training outcomes, given that SH training can improve worker’s behavior
(Monroe et al., 2014).
How does representation in harassment training content improve training outcomes?
Obtaining a sustained positive change after delivering SH training is significantly more difficult
than procedural or skill-based training. SH training addresses skills (i.e., open skills) that are not
directly related to the job role and sometimes elicit emotional responses, whereas procedural or
skill-based training addresses skills (i.e., closed skills) and procedures directly related to the job.
These unique characteristics of SH awareness training make the limitations in transfer of training,
discussed in the following paragraphs, even more salient. We argue that having representative
SBH content is crucial to training success to keep trainees engaged during training, to approach
both new and old SBH training positively, and to promote the transfer of training.
First, to maximize the transfer of SBH training, the content presented during training must be
representative of and applicable to the real workplace. One reaction to training, reaction to con-
tent validity, refers to the degree to which trainees (i.e., regular employees) believe that material
delivered during training is representative of the actual job context (Bates, 1997). Trainees need to
210 Gabrielle C. Danna et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.38
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 100.4.199.9, on 28 Jul 2020 at 17:06:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
engage with realistic content during training for the training experience to have useful and positive
implications once they return to work. Upon post-training, trainees should be able to draw upon
their training experience to perform and utilize newly learned skills and behaviors. If there is no
need to retrieve information presented during training, then trainees may have adverse reactions
to training and not perceive the experience as useful. Content validity is positively related to per-
formance utility. In other words, the degree to which training material is viewed as representative
or not is related to how much trainees think their training experience facilitates workplace per-
formance (Bates, 1997). If SBH materials presented during training are not perceived as realistic
interpersonal interactions that employees may experience, then perceptions of content validity are
threatened. The likeliness of positive changes in behaviors or attitudes would in turn radically
diminish. Consistent with our argument of organizations being more mindful of the content pre-
sented during training, McKillip (2001) suggests that high content validity of training is contin-
gent upon crucial components being implemented in training while keeping the training material
free of any trivial components. To achieve this, organizations should approach training needs
more diligently. Training designers should clearly articulate the spectrum of inappropriate behav-
iors and attitudes present on the job in order to devise a successful design and delivery of training.
Aside from attitudes toward the content delivered in training, attitudes toward SBH training, in
general, are essential factors that must be accepted positively. Specifically, organizations must con-
sider that an employee’s first experience with SBH training is a moment in which critical percep-
tions are formed that have downstream motivational consequences for future training. If trainees
do not perceive an initial training course to be useful, then they will experience declined motiva-
tion during the following training experiences (Sitzmann et al., 2009) . A poorly designed SBH
training with content that is outdated, not analogous to real-world manifestations of SBH, or fails
to represent different populations equally may negatively impact perceptions and attitudes toward
other future SBH training. Even if trainees experience a thoroughly designed and well delivered
SBH training in the future, the potential for a successful transfer of training is diminished
before training begins due to attitudes formed during prior negative SBH training experiences.
Additionally, when organizations incorporate representative content into the training experience,
this may signal to their employees that the organization values the psychological safety of all indi-
viduals within the organization.
Conclusion
Extending ideas proposed by Hayes et al. (2020), we argued that the current lack of success in
harassment training could be partially attributed to the discrepancy between the training content
and real-world manifestations of harassment behaviors. Beyond the typical heterosexual man har-
assing White woman scenario portrayed in most organizational training, SBH affects different
minority groups and heterosexual men differently. We contend that in order to maximize training
transfer, it is essential that organizations first gain a holistic view of workplace harassment and
incorporate that into their training content. Only then can organizations truly leverage value from
SBH training and make substantive progress with the existing workplace harassment problem.
References
Alonso, N. (2018). Playing to win: Male–male sex‐based harassment and the masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues,
74(3), 477–499.
Bates, R. A. (1997). The impact of training content validity, organizational commitment, learning, performance utility, and
transfer climate on transfer of training in an industrial setting. LSU Historical Dissertations and Theses, 6382.
Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of
Management Review,32(2), 641–658.
Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the concept with theory and
data. Psychology of Women Quarterly,20(4), 527–547.
Industrial and Organizational Psychology 211
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.38
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 100.4.199.9, on 28 Jul 2020 at 17:06:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
Berdahl, J. L., & Moore, C. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied
Psychology,91(2), 426–436.
Bergman, M. E., & Drasgow, F. (2003). Race as a moderator in a model of sexual harassment: An empirical test. Journal of
Occupational Health Psychology,8(2), 131–145.
Bowes-Sperry, L., & Powell, G. N. (1999). Observers’reactions to social-sexual behavior at work: An ethical decision making
perspective. Journal of Management,25(6), 779–802.
Brodsky, C. M. (1976). The harassed worker. Toronto, ON: Lexington Books, DC Heath and Company.
Buchanan, N. T., Bergman, M. E., Bruce, T. A., Woods, K. C., & Lichty, L. L. (2009). Unique and joint effects of sexual and
racial harassment on college students’well-being. Basic and Applied Social Psychology,31(3), 267–285.
California Department of Fair Employment & Housing. (n.d.). Sexual harassment FAQs. Retrieved from https://www.dfeh.
ca.gov/Employment/?content=faq/sexual-harassment-faqs/#faqS
Collinson, D. L. (1988). “Engineering humor”: Masculinity, joking and conflict in shopfloor relations. Organization Studies,9,
181–199.
Cortina, L. M., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate for
women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly,22(3), 419–441.
Crenshaw, K.W. (1991) Mapping the margins: Intersectionality, Identity politics, and violence against women of color.
Stanford Law Review,43(6), 1241–1299.
Dubois, C. L., Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., & Kustis, G. A. (1998). An empirical examination of same-and other-gender sexual
harassment in the workplace. Sex Roles,39(9–10), 731–749.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (n.d.). Sexual harassment charges EEOC & FEPAs combined: FY 1997–FY
2011. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/sexual_harassment.cfm
Giuffre, P., Dellinger, K., & Williams, C. L. (2008). “No retribution for being gay?”Inequality in gay-friendly workplaces.
Sociological Spectrum,28(3), 254–277.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Hayes, T. L., Kaylor, L. E., & Oltman, K. A. (2020). Coffee and controversy: How applied psychology can revitalize sexual
harassment and racial discrimination training. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and
Practice,13(2), 117–136.
Hulett, D. M., Bendick, M., Thomas, S. Y., & Moccio, F. (2008). A national report card on women in firefighting. Madison,
WI: International Association of Women in Fire & Emergency Services.
Kalof, L., Eby, K. K., Matheson, J. L., & Kroska, R. J. (2001). The influence of race and gender on student self-reports on
sexual harassment by college professors. Gender & Society,15(2), 282–302.
McFarland, W. P., & Dupuis, M. (2001). The legal duty to protect gay and lesbian students from violence in school.
Professional School Counseling,4(3), 171–179.
McKillip, J. (2001). Case studies in job analysis and training evaluation. International Journal of Training and Development,
5(4), 283–289.
Monroe, K. R., Choi, J., Howell, E., Lampros-Monroe, C., Trejo, C., & Perez, V. (2014). Gender equality in the ivory tower,
and how best to achieve it. PS: Political Science & Politics,47(2), 418–426.
Quick, J. C., & McFadyen, M. (2017). Sexual harassment: Have we made any progress? Journal of Occupational Health
Psychology,22(3), 286–298.
Roehling, M. V., & Huang, J. (2018). Sexual harassment training effectiveness: An interdisciplinary review and call for
research. Journal of Organizational Behavior,39(2), 134–150.
Sears, B., & Mallory, C. (2011). Documented evidence of employment discrimination & its effects on LGBT people. UCLA:
The Williams Institute. Retrieved from https://escholarship.org/uc/item/03m1g5sg
Sitzmann, T., Brown, K. G., Ely, K., & Kraiger, K. (2009). Motivation to learn in a military training curriculum: A longitu-
dinal investigation. Military Psychology,21, 534–551.
Smith, C. P., Cunningham, S. A., & Freyd, J. J. (2016). Sexual violence, institutional betrayal, and psychological outcomes for
LGB college students. Translational Issues in Psychological Science,2(4), 351–360.
Stockdale, M. S., Visio, M., & Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men: Evidence for a broader theory of sexual
harassment and sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law,5(3), 630–664.
Tinkler, J. E. (2012). Resisting the enforcement of sexual harassment law. Law & Social Inquiry,37(1), 1–24.
Tippett, E. C. (2018). Harassment trainings: A content analysis. Berkeley J. Emp. & Lab. L.,39, 481–526.
Cite this article: Danna, G.C., Hernandez, J., Mahabir, B., Nandigama, D., and Cheung, H.K. (2020). Who else besides (White)
women? The need for representation in harassment training. Industrial and Organizational Psychology 13, 208–212. https://
doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.38
212 Gabrielle C. Danna et al.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/terms. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2020.38
Downloaded from https://www.cambridge.org/core. IP address: 100.4.199.9, on 28 Jul 2020 at 17:06:27, subject to the Cambridge Core terms of use, available at
