Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634

DOI 10.1007/s11199-009-9735-0

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Bystander Sexism in the Intergroup Context: The Impact

of Cat-calls on Women’s Reactions Towards Men
Stephenie R. Chaudoir & Diane M. Quinn

Published online: 3 March 2010

# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Abstract Despite the fact that sexism is an inherently in- behaviors, such as sexual harassment, job discrimination,
tergroup phenomenon, women’s group-level responses to and cat-calls, are just a few of the many types of social
sexism have received relatively little empirical attention. phenomena that maintain this group-based hierarchy (e.g.,
We examine the intergroup reactions experienced by 114 Sidanius and Pratto 1999). While this group-based conflict
female students at a U.S. university in New England who lies at the heart of most sexist behavior, little research has
imagined being a bystander to a sexist cat-call remark or examined how women’s psychological responses may take
control greeting. Results indicate that women experienced the form of group-level reactions. That is, while the prepon-
greater negative intergroup emotions and motivations derance of research to date has demonstrated that women
towards the outgroup of men after overhearing the cat-call who are targets of sexism experience a host of deleterious
remark. Further, the experience of group-based anger me- intraindividual outcomes such as increased negative affect
diated the relationship between the effect of study condition and lowered self-esteem (e.g., Crocker et al. 1991;
on the motivation to move against, or oppose, men. Results Fitzgerald 1993), little research has examined how experi-
indicate that bystanders can be affected by sexism and ences of sexism may shape intergroup outcomes such as
highlights how the collective groups of men and women women’s group-level emotions and behavioral intentions
can be implicated in individual instances of sexism. towards the outgroup of men, in general (for an exception,
see Pennekamp et al. 2007). In order to address this gap, we
Keywords Sexism . Bystander . Intergroup emotions . apply insights from social identity perspectives (Tajfel and
Cat-call . Gender identity Turner 1986; Turner et al. 1987) and intergroup emotions
(Mackie et al. 2000; Smith 1993, 1999) to examine the
possibility that exposure to an instance of bystander sexism
Introduction will elicit group-based responses from U.S. undergraduate
women. Specifically, we examine how exposure to bystander
In nearly all cultures, patriarchal social systems ensure that sexism—imagining oneself as a bystander to a “cat-call” to-
women will occupy a lower-power status than men. Sexist wards another woman—may elicit group-based emotions
(i.e., anger and fear) and behavioral intentions (i.e., desire to
move against or away from) towards men, in general.
S. R. Chaudoir : D. M. Quinn
Department of Psychology,
University of Connecticut, 406 Babbidge Rd.,
Sexism and the Intergroup Context
Storrs, CT 06269, USA
Several decades of research demonstrates that sexism is a
S. R. Chaudoir (*) frequent occurrence in American women’s personal and
Bradley University,
1501 W. Bradley Ave,
professional lives and can be detrimental to their psycho-
Peoria, IL 61625, USA logical well-being, health, and job satisfaction (e.g.,
e-mail: [email protected] Crocker et al. 1991; Fitzgerald 1993; Fitzgerald et al.
624 Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634

1997; Major et al. 2003; Schneider et al. 1997, 2001; Swim threats are anger and fear. When individuals perceive that
et al. 1998; Swim and Hyers 1999; Swim et al. 2001; see an outgroup threatens their ingroup but believe they also
Lee et al. 2007 for a discussion of cross-cultural incidence possess the strength and resources to counteract this threat,
and origin of sexism). While a great deal of research has they are likely to feel anger towards the outgroup (e.g.,
focused on understanding these intraindividual outcomes, Cottrell and Neuberg 2005; Frijda 1986; Mackie et al.
very little work has examined the possibility that sexism 2000). This anger, in turn, should increase the ingroup
may also have ramifications for how women view the out- members’ desire to move against, or approach, the outgroup
group of men, more generally (for an exception, see (e.g., Crisp et al. 2007; Mackie et al. 2000; Yzerbyt et al.
Pennekamp et al. 2007). Because sexism necessarily impli- 2003). However, when individuals perceive the same
cates group-based identities—prejudiced acts towards wom- threat but believe they do not have sufficient resources to
en based on their group membership, where the perpetrator counteract the threat, they are likely to feel fear towards
is typically male—specific experiences of sexism may also the outgroup (e.g., Cottrell and Neuberg 2005; Frijda
have important implications for how women perceive and 1986; Mackie et al. 2000). This fear, in turn, should in-
react to men, in general. Put differently, the actions of one crease the ingroup members’ desire to move away from, or
sexist man may serve to taint women’s perceptions of all avoid, the outgroup (e.g., Mackie et al. 2000; Crisp et al.
men. 2007).
Under what conditions might we expect that the sexist While the intergroup emotions model (Mackie et al.
actions of one man will affect women’s perceptions of all 2000; Smith 1993, 1999) has been applied to many types of
men? Here, we suggest that women’s group-based intergroup relations (e.g., differences in beliefs in contro-
emotions and behavioral intentions towards the outgroup versial issues, race/ethnicity, and nationality; Butz and Plant
of men may become more negative when their gender 2006; Mackie et al. 2000; Maitner et al. 2006), its insights
group identity is salient. Drawing on insights from social have rarely been applied to gender. Few studies have
identity perspectives (Tajfel and Turner 1986; Turner et al. examined whether sexism leads women to experience
1987), individuals may vary to the extent that they view group-based emotions and behavioral intentions towards
themselves as individuals vs. interchangeable members of a men. Pennekamp and colleagues (2007) examined whether
social group. In the context of gender, for example, evidence of pervasive sexism would lead Dutch female
environmental stimuli can prompt women to shift from undergraduates to experience feelings of anger towards men
thinking about themselves as unique individuals to thinking and increased behavioral intentions to improve the position
about themselves as interchangeable members of the larger of women in their society. Their results demonstrate that
social group of women, as a whole. Intergroup emotions women who more strongly identified with their gender
theory (Mackie et al. 2000; Smith 1993, 1999), an group reported more intergroup anger towards men which,
extension of social identity perspectives, suggests that in turn, was related to stronger motivations to demand
when women’s group identities become salient, their reparations from men. While the Pennekamp and col-
emotions and motivations shift to reflect their group, rather leagues’ (2007) study provides some initial evidence that
than individual, concerns. Thus, when a woman views an intergroup emotions theory may offer a useful framework to
instance of sexism, her group identity as a woman may consider women’s group-level responses to sexism, it only
become salient and she may subsequently experience examines one, approach-focused emotional response to
emotions and motivations on behalf of her gender group sexism (i.e., anger). In the current work, we examine
(i.e., intergroup response) rather than as an individual women’s feelings of anger and fear towards the outgroup of
person (i.e., intraindividual response). Because she is now men in order to capture both approach-and avoidance-
thinking about herself as an ingroup member, she also related emotions.
necessarily becomes concerned with the outgroup (i.e., In the current study, we also extend previous research by
men). Thus, when gender group identity is made salient, examining whether the actions of an individual outgroup
women may experience emotions and motivations towards member, as opposed to the actions of the entire outgroup,
the outgroup based on whether the current situation may can elicit group-based reactions. The majority of previous
help or harm women as a whole (Mackie et al. 2000; for a research in the domain of intergroup emotions has elicited
review see Mackie and Smith 2002). group-based reactions by prompting participants to think
Research in the domain of intergroup emotions suggests about their group memberships, per se, or by presenting
that when individuals detect harm or threat to their group, group-level threats (e.g., Mackie et al. 2000; Maitner et al.
these appraisals lead them to experience predictable 2006; Pennekamp et al. 2007). For example, as we noted
patterns of emotional and behavioral responses (Cottrell above, Pennekamp and colleagues (2007) prompted Dutch
and Neuberg 2005; Frijda 1986; Mackie et al. 2000). Two women to think about the existence of pervasive sexism—
of the most common emotions elicited by group-based where the outgroup of men currently threatens the equality
Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634 625

of their ingroup. The fact that this study procedure elicited that has directly examined the impact of bystander sexism
anger towards all men may not be particularly surprising in (or a related construct) on women’s well-being is that of
light of the fact that the procedure itself prompted Hitlan and colleagues (Hitlan et al. 2006; Walsh and Hitlan
participants to think and respond at a group level. 2007). These researchers have examined the impact of
Do daily, individual acts of sexism also render group- bystander sexual harassment—“experiences where one
based responses from women? To our knowledge, this observes or knows about the sexual harassment of others
possibility has not been empirically examined. In the but is not directly the target of the harassment.” In their
current study, we considered whether participants will sample of U.S. female employed undergraduate students,
experience group-based emotions and their concomitant 69% of participants reported being a bystander to sexual
motivations in a situation where they are not asked to think harassment and these researchers find that the experience of
about their group membership explicitly and they are bystander sexual harassment exacerbated the negative
presented with an individual-, rather than group-, level emotional responses women had in their own personal
threat. By definition, the motivation behind all forms of experiences with sexual harassment (Hitlan et al. 2006).
sexism is, in and of itself, group-based. Sexism represents This work provides some preliminary evidence to
prejudiced acts towards women based on their group suggest that being a bystander can elicit negative, intra-
membership. However, the manner in which this group- individual psychological consequences for women. How-
based prejudice or threat is expressed can vary widely. In ever, it does not address the possibility that bystander
some situations, such as those represented in Pennekamp sexism may elicit group-based responses. Further, com-
and colleagues’ (2007) work, women are presented with pared to the work by Hitlan and colleagues, our research
evidence of group inequality (e.g., gender pay gap). In adopts a more restrictive definition of what it means to be a
these situations, women are likely to perceive that men, as a bystander. That is, we examine how observing a specific
group, present a threat to women, as a group. Because these sexist incident, rather than observing or knowing about
situations explicitly call attention to gender groups, it chronic sexist behavior in one’s workplace (i.e., sexual
follows that women will also respond to the situation on harassment), impacts women’s outcomes.
behalf of their group and express emotions and motivations One situation in which women are likely to be
directed at men, in general. bystanders to sexist situations is when other women are
In other situations, however, a sexist threat can be targets of cat-calls. Cat-calls are directed at women as a
expressed through an individual group member’s behavior, way to highlight a sexualized part of her body (e.g., breasts,
and women may not readily attribute the offense to gender hips, butt). As Gardner (1980) points out, women in
group status. That is, when women make attributions about America are frequently targets of evaluative and objectify-
an individual man’s sexist behavior, they may be just as ing cat-calls about their bodies when they are in public.
likely to attribute the behavior to his individual self (e.g., Although it is possible that men may intend to make cat-
his rude personality) as they are to attribute the behavior to call remarks in order to compliment or attract women,
his group membership (e.g., a sexist man whose behavior researchers have consistently emphasized the derogatory
represents the group-based threat of sexism). When sexism and sexist nature of these comments (Bowman 1993).
is expressed via an individual man’s behavior, American Cat-calls are a frequent way in which women are the
women frequently fail to attribute the behavior to the targets of sexism in their daily lives (Swim et al. 2001),
group-level threat of sexism (e.g., Crosby 1984; Inman and with 42% of U.S. female college students reporting that
Baron 1996; Sechrist and Delmar 2009; for a review, see they are the direct targets of cat-calls at least once a month
Barrett and Swim 1996). Unlike threats that are expressed and an additional 31% reporting these experiences every
in group-based terms, threats expressed in individual few days (Fairchild and Rudman 2008). Recent work
behaviors may fail to elicit group-level attributions and, reports that the experience of street harassment is directly
therefore, group-based responses. related to greater preoccupation with physical appearance
and body shame, and is indirectly related to heightened
Bystander Sexism and Cat-calls fears of rape for U.S. undergraduate women (Fairchild and
Rudman 2008).
While individual instances of sexism can be expressed in The negative effects of cat-calls may not be confined
any number of ways, bystander sexism is one expression solely to women who are targets. An important feature of
that has received minimal empirical attention. Bystander cat-call remarks is that they are given in public contexts,
sexism is an instance of sexism wherein a woman is not such as on city streets. Because of the public nature of these
directly involved in the immediate social context of the comments, they are likely to be overheard by other female
sexist event targeted at another woman, but is exposed to bystanders. Thus, overhearing and attending to cat-calls
the event nonetheless. To our knowledge, the only work directed at other women may also affect female bystanders.
626 Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634

Overview of Present Research Thus, in our study, it is possible that participants could feel
intergroup anger or fear in response to the cat-call remark.
In the current work, we examine female undergraduates’
Hypothesis 2a. Women in the bystander sexism condi-
psychological responses to bystander sexism. To do so, we
tion will report greater intergroup anger and greater
asked women to watch a video and imagine themselves as a
intergroup fear than women in the control condition.
bystander to an interaction where a man made either a
sexist cat-call remark or a control greeting directed at Although we predicted that women would report more of
another woman. We examined how exposure to these two both negative emotions (i.e., anger and fear) when they
different types of comments (i.e., sexist cat-call vs. control overheard the cat-call compared to the neutral comment, we
greeting) would impact the salience of their gender expected feelings of anger to be stronger than feelings of
identity, their individual and intergroup emotional reac- fear. Although fear is often a relevant emotional reaction in
tions, and their intergroup motivations towards men, in response to sexism (e.g., Woodzicka and LaFrance 2001),
general. we expected that women would experience stronger feel-
We expected that participants would find the cat-call ings of anger because they were not the direct targets of the
scenario to be more prejudiced than the neutral scenario, a sexist commentary. Previous work indicates that women
difference that would serve as a test of the validity of our often anticipate that they will react with more anger than
manipulation. Based on our theorizing noted above, we fear (Woodzicka and LaFrance 2001) and that they will be
tested four main hypotheses in this study. In accordance more likely to directly confront a sexist perpetrator (Shelton
with social identity perspectives (Tajfel and Turner 1986; and Stewart 2004) when they are asked to indicate their
Turner et al. 1987), we expected that women who were expected responses to a hypothetical sexist situation. That
bystanders to the cat-call comment would be more likely to is, women tend to overestimate the extent to which they
experience gender identity salience—thoughts about their will feel anger and exhibit confrontational behavior when
gender group membership. they are asked to indicate how they think they will react.
Although these results do not directly parallel the procedure
Hypothesis 1. Women in the bystander sexism condition
used in the current work, these results do suggest that
will be more likely than women in the control condition
women who are bystanders watching a sexist scenario, but
to list thoughts about their gender group membership (e.g.,
removed from the direct situation, will experience more
girl, woman) on a measure of working self-concept.
intergroup anger than intergroup fear.
Because women will be more likely to be thinking of Hypothesis 2b. Among women in the bystander sexism
themselves in terms of their gender identity, we expected condition, intergroup anger will be greater than inter-
that women exposed to the cat-call will also experience group fear.
greater group-level emotions (i.e., anger and fear towards
men) than women exposed to the control comment. Because intergroup emotions are hypothesized to elicit
However, to what degree will women experience anger concomitant motivations towards the outgroup of men
compared to fear? Previous work in the intergroup (Mackie et al. 2000; Smith 1993, 1999)—feelings of anger
emotions domain has often manipulated the relative power give rise to motivations to move against men while feelings
of the ingroup in order to elicit one emotion over the other of fear give rise to motivations to move away from men—
(e.g., anger vs. fear; Mackie et al. 2000). For purposes of our predictions for intergroup motivations were parallel to
the present work, however, we chose a stimulus that could those noted above for intergroup emotions.
conceivably elicit either emotion: intergroup anger or fear.
Hypothesis 3a. Women in the bystander sexism con-
A cat-call is a particularly ambiguous sexist situation
dition will report greater intergroup motivations to
because it could be perceived as having either a harmful
move against men and greater intergroup motivations
or complimentary intent (Bowman 1993). That is, some
to move away from men compared to women in the
women may perceive the comment to be demeaning and
control condition.
overtly offensive while others may perceive the comment to
Hypothesis 3b. Among women in the bystander sexism
be harmless and flattering. Thus, appraisals of the intent of
condition, women will report greater motivation to move
the cat-call remark could vary widely. Further, we did not
against men than to move away from men.
give women information about the relative power of the
gender groups, making it possible that women’s appraisals According to intergroup emotions theory (Mackie et al.
of relative group strength would also vary widely. In 2000; Smith 1993, 1999), intergroup emotions should
addition, prior work has demonstrated that participants mediate the effect of condition on their respective inter-
experience increases of both intergroup anger and fear in group motivations. If, however, intergroup anger is the
response to group-based threats (e.g., Maitner et al. 2006). predominant response of female bystanders as we have
Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634 627

theorized, intergroup anger should mediate the effect of aged), and hostility (e.g., angry), and items are averaged to
condition on motivations to move against men, but inter- create a composite measure of each subscale (αs = .79, .78,
group fear should not mediate the effect of condition on and .81, respectively). The MAACL has been used to assess
motivations to move away from men. changes in state negative affect in response to sexism in
several prior studies (e.g., Samoluk and Pretty 1994; Schmitt
Hypothesis 4. Intergroup anger will mediate the effect
et al. 2003).
of condition on motivation to move against men.
Additionally, intergroup emotions should not mediate the Intergroup Emotions
effect of condition on their opposite motivational orienta-
tion. Anger—an approach-oriented emotion—should not A measure of intergroup emotions (Mackie et al. 2000) was
mediate the effect of condition on motivation to move away included in order to assess other-directed emotions (i.e.,
from men. Fear—an avoidance-oriented emotion—should emotions directed towards men). The intergroup emotions
not mediate the effect of condition on motivation to move measure is comprised of two, 4-item subscales measuring
against men. anger (e.g., irritated, furious) and fear (e.g., anxious, afraid).
Ultimately, we expect that women who are bystanders to Respondents indicate on a 7-point Likert scale ranging from
a cat-call remark will be more likely to respond to this 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) the extent to which the out-
situation on the basis of their group membership, rather group (i.e., men) makes them feel each emotion (e.g., “Men,
than individual identity. If it is the case that women in the in general, make me feel irritated”). Subscale items are
bystander sexism condition are more likely to exhibit averaged to create a composite measure of each emotion
gender identity salience and, therefore, exhibit greater αs=.93 and .85, respectively.
group-based emotions, it also follows that these women
should not necessarily experience greater individual-based Prejudice Appraisal Manipulation Check
emotions compared to women in the control condition.
Because group-and individual-based emotions are distinct In order to verify that women perceived the cat-call remark
affective experiences (Seger et al. 2009; Smith et al. 2007), to be more prejudiced than the greeting, they were asked to
we expected that individual-based emotions would not be make ratings about the extent to which they perceived the
affected by our manipulation. In order to check this comment as prejudiced. We also included several filler rating
assumption, we also included a measure of individual level items (e.g., intelligent, humorous) in order to reduce
negative affect. participant demand characteristics (adapted from Swim and
Hyers 1999). Ratings of this one-item measure of prejudice
were made on a 7-point Likert scale (1 = not at all, 7 = very).
Method
Intergroup Motivations
Participants
In order to assess motivations toward the out-group (i.e.,
One-hundred fourteen female students from a large public men) after overhearing the male confederate’s comment, the
New England university in the U.S. participated in this intergroup behavioral tendencies scale (Mackie et al. 2000)
study for partial course credit during the spring semester of was utilized. This measure is comprised of two, 3-item
2005. Participants were predominantly Caucasian (79.8%), subscales measuring the desire to move against (e.g., “Men,
and the mean age of this sample was 18.6 (SD=1.26) years. in general, make me want to oppose them”) or away (e.g.,
“Men, in general, make me want to avoid them”) from the
Measure out-group. Respondents indicate on a 7-point Likert scale
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely) the extent to
State Negative Affect which the out-group (men) makes them want to engage in
each behavior. Subscale items were averaged to create a
The Multiple Affect Adjective Checklist (MAACL; composite score for each behavioral tendency (αs = .86 and
Zuckerman and Lubin 1965) served as a measure of .93, respectively).
respondents’ experience of overall state negative affect.
Respondents indicate on a 5-point Likert scale the extent to Gender Identity Salience
which each emotion adjective describes their current
emotional state (1 = not at all, 5 = very much). The Participants completed the Twenty Statements Test (TST;
MAACL is a 20-item measure composed of three subscales Kuhn and McPartland 1954)—a measure of working self-
measuring anxiety (e.g., nervous), depression (e.g., discour- concept—in order to assess whether women were thinking
628 Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634

about themselves in terms of their gender group. Partic- the profile of the male confederate as he made the comment
ipants were asked to fill in a series of twenty statements that in the hallway. Participants were randomly assigned to hear
complete the sentence “I am _____.” We created a either a sexist cat-call remark (N=58) or a control greeting
dichotomous coding scheme in order to code for the (N=56) in the video. In the sexist condition, the male
presence or absence of gender identity (e.g., “I am a girl”) confederate made a “cat-call” remark into the hallway,
in each of participant’s 20 responses to this measure. Two directed at the fictitious female target, saying, “Hey Kelly,
trained raters coded each of these 20 statements for the your boobs look great in that shirt!” The “cat-call” was
presence of 3 target words representing gender identity: intended to serve as a sexual objectification of the target
“girl,” “woman,” and “female.” These two raters demon- female by drawing attention to a sexualized part of her
strated 99% agreement. Of the participants who wrote a body (i.e., breasts). In the control condition, the male
gender identity response to the TST, only 1 participant confederate directed a greeting to the fictitious female
wrote more than one gender identity response (i.e., 2 gender target, saying, “Hey Kelly, what’s up?”
identity responses); the rest wrote only 1 gender identity After the male confederate made his comment, the
response. Therefore, given this lack of variability in our experimenter directed him to wait in a separate room. After
sample, we created a final dichotomous measure that assessed the male confederate left the room, the experimenter closed
whether women mentioned their gender identity (yes vs. no) the door to begin the experimental session, and the video
in any of their 20 responses to the TST. stopped. After viewing the videotape, participants complet-
ed ratings of the male participant and the comment he
Procedure made. Measures were completed in the order listed in the
section above.
Participants were tested in individual sessions and told that In order to ensure that participants paid attention to the
the purpose of the study was to examine how people form main study manipulation, we asked participants the follow-
first impressions of others. After completing a consent ing question after completing the materials noted above: “In
form, participants were asked to view a videotape of an the video, which of the following do you recall about what
experimental session that was conducted during the prior happened prior to the start of the experiment?” Participants
semester and imagine that they were the participant in that chose from 1 of 4 options: (1) A man greeted his friend in the
session. Participants were told that they would be asked to hallway, (2) A man made a comment about a girl’s appear-
make ratings about their impressions of a person in the ance in the hallway, (3) Don’t remember what the man said,
video after they had finished watching it and that we were and (4) Don’t remember ever seeing a man. Participants in the
interested in seeing how their impressions compared to cat-call condition who chose options 1, 3 or 4 and participants
those of the participants we examined in the previous in the control condition who chose options 2, 3, or 4 were
semester. They were told that we would be asking them to excluded. Based on these criteria, 14 of the participants
recall information about what they saw in the video and that incorrectly recalled what they heard the male participant say
they should make sure to pay attention to the video. in the video, so these participants’ data were dropped from all
Participants were randomly assigned to hear one of two analyses. Therefore, our final sample included 100 women
procedural manipulations in the video in which they (54 in the sexism condition; 46 in the control condition).
believed they would later be interacting with the male
participant as part of the study, or they believed that he was
at the session due to a scheduling error. This manipulation Results
did not affect the results described below, so we do not
discuss the effect of this manipulation further. Manipulation Check and Descriptive Statistics
The video was a recording of the following scenario
involving a male participant and a female experimenter. Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for our main study
The video was recorded from the perspective of the variables. We first used our manipulation check to
participant, where the participant would be seated facing determine whether the bystander sexism condition was
the open doorway of the experiment room, and a female perceived to be more prejudiced than the control condition
experimenter stood in front of the participant. Approxi- and, indeed, it was, t(98) = 13.00, p<.001, d=2.52. How-
mately one minute after the experimenter finished deliver- ever, although participants viewed the cat-call remark as
ing verbal instructions regarding the nature of the study, a more prejudiced than the greeting, their mean ratings of
male confederate arrived at the experiment, paused in the prejudice were just above the midpoint of the scale. Thus,
open doorway leading into the room and made a brief the cat-call remark was rated as moderately prejudiced.
statement to a fictitious female friend in the hallway Table 2 presents the bivariate correlations among the
outside. From their seated position, “participants” viewed main study variables. Intercorrelations among the state nega-
Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634 629

Table 1 Descriptive statistics

based on condition. Bystander Control (n=46) Between-group
sexism (n=54) p-value

Appraisal of prejudice 4.67 (1.93) 1.15 (0.42) <.001

Gender identity salience 15 (28%) 6 (13%) .06
Gender identity salience is di- State negative affect
chotomous measure. Appraisal of Anxiety 2.02 (0.54) 2.14 (0.67) n.s.
prejudice, intergroup emotions, Depression 1.95 (0.53) 2.11 (0.61) n.s.
and intergroup behavioral inten-
tions were measured on a 1 (not at Hostility 1.75 (0.62) 1.71 (0.67) n.s.
all) to 7 (very/extremely) scale. Intergroup emotions
State negative affect was mea- Anger 4.08 (1.30) 1.58 (0.83) <.001
sured on a 1 (not at all) to 5
Fear 2.11 (0.98) 1.40 (0.77) <.001
(very much) scale. Comparison is
based on t-test for appraisal of Intergroup motivations
prejudice, Chi-square for gender Move against 3.67 (1.48) 1.59 (0.83) <.001
identity salience, and univariate Move away 4.65 (1.30) 2.07 (1.47) <.001
ANOVAs for remaining variables.

tive affect subscales (rs=.57 to .74), intergroup emotions (r= be more likely to think of themselves in terms of their
.62), and intergroup motivation (r=57) were all significant gender identity (i.e., gender identity salience) after over-
and in the expected direction (all ps<.05). Additionally, the hearing the cat-call remark compared to a neutral greeting.
intergroup emotions of anger and fear were each correlated
with their respective intergroup motivation in the expected Hypothesis 2a: Intergroup emotions across condition
direction (r=.82 and .28, respectively; all ps<.05). We hypothesized that women in the bystander sexism
condition would report greater intergroup emotions of anger
Hypothesis 1: Gender identity salience
and fear compared to those in the control condition. In
We conducted a chi-square analysis in order to determine order to examine this hypothesis, we conducted a one-way
whether participants who overheard the cat-call remark multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) of the
would be more likely to think of themselves in terms of intergroup anger and intergroup fear scales with condition
their gender group identity. Results indicate that women in as a between-subject factor. This multivariate analysis sup-
the bystander sexism condition were marginally more likely ported our hypothesis, Wilks’ λ=.40, F(2, 97) = 72.31,
to exhibit gender identity salience compared to women in p<.01. Follow-up univariate tests indicated that women in
the control condition (28% vs. 13%), χ2(1) = 3.4, p=.06. the bystander sexism condition reported both more inter-
Thus, there is a marginally significant trend for women to group anger, F(1, 98) = 142.95, p<.001, and intergroup fear,

Table 2 Correlations among study variables.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9.

1. Gender identity saliencea

2. Prejudice appraisal .18
State negative affect
3. Anxiety −.04 −.04
4. Hostility .04 .02 .57**
5. Depression .07 −.19 .67** .74**
Intergroup Emotions
6. Anger .14 .71** .08 .26** .09
7. Fear .02 .38** .20* .26** .17 .62**
Intergroup Motivations
8. Move against .10 .63** −.04 .18 −.05 .82** .43**
9. Move away .26* .58** −.08 .05 −.04 .56** .28** .57**
10. Conditionb .20 .77** −.11 .03 −.15 .77** .42* .67** .71**
a
0 = no, 1 = yes. b 0 = control, 1 = sexist
**p<.01. *p<.05
630 Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634

F(1, 98) = 20.91, p<.01, compared to women in the control against vs. move away from) as a within-subject factor.
condition. This analysis reveals that women in the control condition
demonstrate the same effect—they report a greater desire to
Hypothesis 2b: Intergroup anger vs. intergroup fear in
move away from men than move against them, F(1,45) =
bystander sexism condition
8.55, p<.01, ηp2 =.16. Thus, across both experimental con-
We hypothesized that women in the bystander sexism ditions, women demonstrated greater motivation to move
condition would report greater intergroup anger compared away from than against the outgroup of men.
to intergroup fear. In order to examine this hypothesis, we
Hypothesis 4: Mediation analysis of intergroup anger and
conducted a one-way ANOVA among women in the by-
motivation to move against men
stander sexism condition using intergroup emotion (anger
vs. fear) as a within-subject factor. Consistent with our hy- In accordance with intergroup emotions theory (Smith
pothesis, women in the bystander sexism condition reported 1993, 1999; Mackie et al. 2000), we hypothesized that
greater intergroup anger than intergroup fear, F(1,53) = intergroup anger, but not intergroup fear, would mediate the
150.48), p<.001, ηp2 =.74. effect of condition on the motivation to move against men.
We utilized procedures outlined in Preacher and Hayes
Hypothesis 3a: Intergroup motivation across condition
(2008) to examine bootstrapping estimates of the indirect
We predicted that women in the bystander sexism effects in a multiple mediator model. These procedures
condition would report greater intergroup motivations to allow us to estimate the respective effect of both intergroup
move against and away from men than women in the anger and intergroup fear simultaneously. Further, boot-
control condition. In order to examine this hypothesis, we strapping allows us to derive estimates of the indirect or
conducted a one-way MANOVA of the intergroup motiva- mediated effects from a sampling distribution (Shrout and
tion to move against men and motivation to move away Bolger 2002), and it is generally preferred over the causal
from men scales with condition as a between-subject factor. steps approach (i.e., Baron and Kenny 1986) when dealing
This analysis supported our hypothesis, demonstrating that with relatively small sample sizes.
women in the bystander sexism condition reported more Consistent with hypotheses, the indirect effect of con-
intergroup emotions compared to women in the control dition on motivation to move against men through inter-
condition, Wilks’ λ=.40, F(2, 97) = 73.91, p<.001. Follow- group anger was significant, B=2.13, SE=.36, p<.05, 95%
up univariate tests indicated that women in the bystander BCa bootstrap CI: 1.41, 2.82, while the indirect effect
sexism condition reported both more intergroup motivation through intergroup fear was not significant, B=−.15, SE=.12,
to move against men, F(1, 98) = 78.42, p<.001, and inter- n.s., 95% BCa bootstrap CI:−.41, .08. The direct effect of
group motivation to move away from men, F(1, 98) = 98.39, condition on motivation to move against men was not
p<.001, compared to women in the control condition. significant (B=.25, SE=.30, n.s.). Unstandardized path
coefficients are presented in Fig. 1. In sum, intergroup
Hypothesis 3b: Intergroup motivation to move against men
anger, but not intergroup fear, mediated the effect of
vs. motivation to move away from men in bystander sexism
condition on motivation to move against men.
condition
We hypothesized that women in the bystander sexism Additional Meditational Analyses
condition would report greater motivation to move against
men compared to motivation to move away from men. In In addition to providing a direct test of this hypothesis, we
order to examine this hypothesis, we conducted a one-way also conducted an additional mediation analysis in order to
ANOVA among women in the bystander sexism condition
using intergroup motivation (move against vs. move away Intergroup
from) as a within-subject factor. Contrary to our hypothesis, Anger
women in the bystander sexism condition reported less
Intergroup
motivation to move against men compared to their motiva- Fear
tion to move away from men, F(1,53) = 14.70, p<.001,
2.56** .78** -0.21 0.82**
ηp2 =.22.
Given that this finding was contrary to our hypothesis,
we wanted to further examine whether this effect occurred
Condition .25, n.s. Motivation to
only among women in the bystander sexism or if it
(0 = control, 1 = sexist) Move Against Men
occurred for women in the control condition as well. We
conducted an additional one-way ANOVA among women Fig. 1 Mediation analysis of condition on motivation to move against
in the control condition using intergroup motivation (move men. Path coefficients are unstandardized. **p<.01.
Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634 631

provide additional, convergent support for our main sexism, women in the cat-call condition reported feeling
prediction. Because we expected that intergroup anger more anger towards men than fear. Further, the effect of
would be the predominant intergroup emotional response intergroup anger mediated the relationship between condi-
to an instance of bystander sexism, we can also expect that tion and motivations to move against or oppose men,
intergroup fear should not mediate the effect of condition demonstrating that greater anger towards men accounted
on the motivation to move away from men. Further, for women’s motivation to oppose them. However, inter-
intergroup anger should not mediate the effect of condition group fear did not mediate the relationship between con-
on its opposite behavioral motivation to move away from dition and motivations to move away from men, a finding
men. that lends additional support to our hypothesis that inter-
Consistent with hypotheses, neither the indirect effect group anger would be the predominant emotional response
through intergroup anger, B=.19, SE=.31, n.s., 95% BCa to bystander sexism. Together, these results provide new
bootstrap CI:−.49, .77, nor intergroup fear, B=−.06, SE= .17, insight into the consequences of bystander sexism and the
n.s., 95% BCa bootstrap CI:−.38, .29, mediated the effect of utility of conceptualizing sexist incidences from an explicit
condition on motivation to move away from men. The direct intergroup framework.
effect of cat-call on motivation to move away from men was One unexpected finding in our data was that women who
significant, B=2.55, SE=.43, p<.001. Thus, this analysis overheard the cat-call comment reported more motivation
demonstrates that neither intergroup emotion mediated the to move away from men relative to their motivation to
effect of condition on motivation to move away from men. move against men. However, this relative difference in
Finally, if our theorizing is correct and bystander sexism motivations towards men occurred across both conditions,
leads women to shift from an individual- to a group-level of meaning that participants were more inclined to move away
self-categorization and experience emotions on behalf of from the outgroup of men than to move against them
their gender group, it should also be the case that women in regardless of what they heard a man say. We offer two
the bystander sexism condition should not experience possible explanations for these results. First, it may be the
greater individual-based emotions than women in the con- case that although the cat-call elicited more intergroup
trol condition. A multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) anger than fear, it was not sufficiently severe enough to
supports this assumption. This multivariate analysis indi- produce marked increases in the desire to oppose men
cates that there were no differences in state negative affect directly. Perhaps a more derogatory cat-call comment or a
based on experimental condition (Wilks’ λ=.94, F(3, 96) = more severe sexist incident (e.g., direct sexual coercion by
2.22, n.s.), and the follow-up univariate tests confirmed this a coworker) would have produced greater motivations to
(all ps>.15). oppose men compared to motivations to avoid them. Sec-
ondly, these results may simply demonstrate the tendency for
group members to refrain from taking direct actions against
Discussion offending outgroup members (e.g., Hyers 2007; Wright et al.
1990) or the tendency for women to refrain from engaging
The current study examined women’s group-based reac- in confrontational behavior (e.g., Rudman 1999), perhaps
tions to overhearing a cat-call remark. We drew on insights due to gender role prescriptions (Henley 1977).
from social identity perspectives (Tajfel and Turner 1979; The current study highlights the impact of group iden-
Turner et al. 1987) and intergroup emotions theory (Mackie tities in instances of prejudice. Previous work has focused
et al. 2000; Smith 1993, 1999) to examine whether women on the impact of group identities from the perspective of the
experienced group-based emotions and behavioral tenden- sexist perpetrator and has demonstrated that (male) identity
cies in response to this instance of bystander sexism. Our concerns often lead men to enact sexist behavior (Hitlan et
results suggest a marginally significant trend for women’s al. 2009; Maass et al. 2003; Pryor and Whalen 1997). From
gender identity to be more likely to become salient in in- the perspective of the target, however, researchers have
stances of bystander sexism. Thus, women may be more tended to emphasize the role of chronic group identification
likely to think about themselves in terms of their gender in affecting women’s individual reactions to sexism
group identity and, therefore, react to an instance of (Cameron 2001; McCoy and Major 2003). Thus, our
bystander sexism based on their group-level concerns. Our study’s emphasis on the effect of situational salience of
results confirm that women experienced greater intergroup gender group identity is a new contribution and underscores
emotions (i.e., anger and fear) and motivations towards the the need for future research that examines how group
outgroup of men (i.e., move against and move away from) identities are implicated in responses to sexist incidents.
when they were an imagined bystander to a cat-call com- Our results also provide new information regarding the
ment. Consistent with our expectation that intergroup anger psychological consequences of bystander sexism, an area of
would be the predominant emotional response to bystander research that has received little empirical attention. Women
632 Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634

experience a variety of negative consequences as the direct context where an individual outgroup member threatens
targets of sexism (e.g., Shelton and Stewart 2004; Swim one’s ingroup, the present work extends the utility of inter-
and Hyers 1999), and the current study demonstrates that group emotions theory to new contexts that invoke social
bystanders are affected by instances of sexism as well. identity threats.
Although women may not feel greater negative emotional It is important that these results be interpreted with
reactions directed inward in response to bystander sexism, several limitations in mind. In the current study design,
they may feel greater negative emotions directed outwards women were not physically present as bystanders in the
towards men. Thus, this study provides some evidence that sexist situation; rather, they imagined themselves in this
the effects of sexism are not confined solely to the target of situation via a video recording. Given that participants
prejudice when the sexist event occurs in a public setting. typically cannot accurately predict their reactions to sexist
Instead, our results indicate that for every woman who is a situations when they are not physically present in the
direct target of sexism, there may be several other women situation (e.g., Shelton and Stewart 2004), current results
who witness the event and are also affected as bystanders. may overestimate the anger or underestimate the fear
By positioning the current work within an intergroup women would experience had they overheard the cat-call
framework, this study also emphasizes the utility of remark in person. Thus, the ability of these results to
exploring the nature of group-based reactions to sexism. generalize to women’s reactions in real world settings is
Most extant work has focused on individual reactions to limited. Further, gender identity was only marginally more
sexism such as individual level negative affect and self- salient in the cat-call condition compared to our control.
esteem (e.g., Swim and Hyers 1999), an emphasis that may Additional work that replicates this pattern at conventional
fail to identify how specific instances of sexism affect how levels of statistical significance is needed in order to draw
men and women perceive and interact with each other more firm conclusions about this effect. Finally, our reliance on
generally. The current study demonstrates that women’s an undergraduate sample of women limits our ability to
emotions and motivations towards men become more generalize these findings across women, more broadly.
negative when they are bystanders of sexism. These results Future research that examines these processes among
not only demonstrate that women are affected as bystanders middle- and late-adult aged women who, presumably, have
of sexism, but they also suggest that women’s feelings and had more chances to be bystanders to sexism could offer
behaviors towards all men can be affected by the actions of one method to address this concern.
a single man. That is, the actions of one sexist man can Nonetheless, the results from this study point to several
impact how female bystanders may perceive and interact promising directions for future research in the areas of
with other men. From this perspective, instances of sexism and intergroup emotions. Our study only examined
prejudice negatively impact bystanders in both groups; the effect of bystander sexism on two intergroup emotions—
female bystanders may react negatively towards men and anger and fear. Future work may benefit by examining other
male bystanders may be perceived negatively because of relevant types of negative intergroup emotions such as
the actions of a single sexist man. disgust (Cottrell and Neuberg 2005). Further, given that
Our study also extends current theorizing about group- cat-calls are relatively ambiguous events that could be
based emotions. Previous work on intergroup emotions has interpreted as complimentary (Bowman 1993), examining
largely focused on how people perceive and react to threats positive emotional reactions may also be a fruitful area for
from collective outgroups on one’s ingroup (e.g., Mackie et future work. In addition to intergroup emotions and motiva-
al. 2000), but has largely overlooked situations in which tions, additional research examining bystanders’ likelihood
one’s ingroup is threatened by an individual outgroup of intervening in specific sexist incidents or likelihood of
member. Any situation in which the individuals involved contributing to broader efforts to reduce sexism are also
perceive themselves to be acting on behalf of their group interesting areas for future work.
may implicate group identity and be perceived and reacted Ultimately, the current work underscores the notion that
to in terms of that group identity (Tajfel and Turner 1986; sexism can be bad for everyone. Women are obviously impli-
Turner et al. 1987). In the case of sexism, for example, cated because they often suffer direct negative consequences
women’s social identity may become salient when men as a as targets of prejudice and, as the current work demonstrates,
group threaten them (e.g., acknowledgement of pervasive indirect consequences as bystanders. But sexism also harms
gender discrimination) and when an individual man who is men as well. Whenever a single man’s prejudiced actions
perceived to be acting on behalf of his gender threatens an make gender identity salient, male perpetrators can impact
individual woman (e.g., cat-call comments). However, this how women view and react to men more generally. From this
latter type of situation has not been examined within the perspective, sexist instances do not occur in a social vacuum
context of intergroup emotions. By exploring the role of wherein a single perpetrator and target interact. As numer-
group-based emotions and behavioral tendencies in a ous researchers have already demonstrated, sexual harass-
Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634 633

ment in a work environment can negatively affect women as Hitlan, R. T., Schneider, K. T., & Walsh, B. M. (2006). Upsetting
behavior: Reactions to personal and bystander sexual harassment
direct targets and bystanders (e.g., Fitzgerald 1993; Hitlan et
experiences. Sex Roles, 55, 187–195.
al. 2006), can compromise the organizational climate, and Hitlan, R. T., Pryor, J. B., Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & Olson, M.
can, ultimately, be financially costly to organizations (for a (2009). Antecedents of gender harassment: An analysis of person
review, see Terpstra and Baker 1986). Thus, our study adds and situation factors. Sex Roles, 61, 794–807.
Hyers, L. L. (2007). Resisting prejudice every day: Exploring
to the growing literature illustrating that individual inciden-
women’s assertive responses to anti-black racism, anti-
ces of sexism can have wide-ranging and deleterious Semitism, heterosexism, and sexism. Sex Roles, 56, 1–12.
consequences. Inman, M. L., & Baron, R. S. (1996). Influence of prototypes on
perceptions of prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 70, 727–739.
Acknowledgments This work is based on the master’s thesis of the Kuhn, M. H., & McPartland, T. S. (1954). An empirical investigation
first author. We thank Sjoerd Pennekamp for his helpful comments on of self-attitudes. American Sociological Review, 19, 68–76.
a previous draft of this manuscript, Jack Dovidio and Janet Barnes- Lee, I. C., Pratto, F., & Li, M. C. (2007). Social relationships and
Farrell for their guidance as thesis committee members, and Lindsay sexism in the United States and Taiwan. Journal of Cross-
Aronheim, Matthew Barry, Daniel Butler, Elizabeth Fabrizi, Randi Cultural Psychology, 38, 595–612.
Ferguson, Nick Frogley, and Sarah Pennington for their help with data Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual
collection. Portions of this research were presented at the 6th and 7th harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment
Annual Meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85,
853–870.
Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (Eds.). (2002). From prejudice to
intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups.
New York: Psychology Press.
References Mackie, D. M., Devos, T., & Smith, E. R. (2000). Intergroup
emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in an intergroup
Barrett, L. F., & Swim, J. K. (1996). Appraisals of prejudice and context. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 602–
discrimination. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: 616.
The target’s perspective (pp. 11–36). San Diego: Academic Press. Maitner, A. T., Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (2006). Evidence for
Bowman, C. G. (1993). Street harassment and the informal ghettoiza- the regulatory function of intergroup emotion: Emotional
tion of women. Harvard Law Review, 106, 517–580. consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action
Butz, D. A., & Plant, E. A. (2006). Perceiving outgroup members as tendencies. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42,
unresponsive: Implications for approach-related emotions, inten- 720–728.
tions, and behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol- Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & Schmader, T. (2003). Attributions to
ogy, 91, 1066–1079. discrimination and self-esteem: Impact of group identification
Cameron, J. E. (2001). Social identity, modern sexism, and percep- and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social
tions of personal and group discrimination by women and men. Psychology, 39, 220–231.
Sex Roles, 45, 743–766. McCoy, S. K., & Major, B. (2003). Group identification moderates
Cottrell, C. A., & Neuberg, S. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions emotional responses to perceived prejudice. Personality and
to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 1005–1017.
“prejudice”. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., Zebel, S., & Fischer, A. H. (2007). The
770–789. past and the pending: The antecedents and consequences of
Crisp, R. J., Heuston, S., Farr, M. J., & Turner, R. N. (2007). Seeing group-based anger in historically and currently disadvantaged
red or feeling blue: Differentiated intergroup emotions and groups. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 41–55.
ingroup identification in soccer fans. Group Processes & Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling
Intergroup Relations, 10, 9–26. strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple
Crocker, J., Voelkl, K., Testa, M., & Major, B. (1991). Social stigma: mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891.
The affective consequences of attributional ambiguity. Journal of Pryor, J. B., & Whalen, N. J. (1997). A typology of sexual
Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 218–228. harassment: Characteristics of harassers and the social circum-
Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American stances under which sexual harassment occurs. In W. O’Donohue
Behavioral Scientist, 27, 371–386. (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 129–
Fairchild, K., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Everyday stranger harassment 151). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.
and women’s objectification. Social Justice Research, 21, 338– Rudman, L. A. (1999). Feminized management and backlash toward
357. agentic women: The hidden costs to women of a kinder, gentler
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women image of middle managers. Journal of Personality and Social
in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48, 1070–1076. Psychology, 77, 1004–1010.
Fitzgerald, L. W., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Samoluk, S. B., & Pretty, G. M. H. (1994). The impact of sexual
Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment simulations on women’s thoughts and feelings. Sex
harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Roles, 30, 679–699.
Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589. Schmitt, M. T., Branscombe, N. R., & Postmes, T. (2003). Women’s
Frijda, N. H. (1986). The emotions. Cambridge: Cambridge University emotional responses to the pervasiveness of gender discrimina-
Press. tion. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 297–312.
Gardner, C. B. (1980). Passing by: Street remarks, address rights, and Schneider, K. T., Swann, S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Job-related
the urban female. Sociological Inquiry, 50, 328–356. and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace:
Henley, N. (1977). Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied
communication. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall. Psychology, 82, 401–415.
634 Sex Roles (2010) 62:623–634

Schneider, K. T., Tomaka, J., & Palacios, R. (2001). Women’s cognitive, Swim, J. K., Cohen, L. L., & Hyers, L. L. (1998). Experiencing
affective, and physiological reactions to a male coworker’s sexist everyday prejudice and discrimination. In J. K. Swim & C.
behavior. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 1995–2018. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 37–60).
Sechrist, G. B., & Delmar, C. (2009). When do men and women make San Diego: Academic.
attributions to gender discrimination? The role of discrimination Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001).
source. Sex Roles, 61, 607–620. Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and
Seger, C. R., Smith, E. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2009). Subtle activation psychological impact from three diary studies. Journal of Social
of a social categorization triggers group-level emotions. Journal Issues, 57, 31–53.
of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 460–467. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-
Shelton, J. N., & Stewart, R. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of group behavior. In S. Worchel & L. W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology
prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of of Intergroup Relations. Chigago: Nelson-Hall.
Women Quarterly, 28, 215–223. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1986). A framework for the study of
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and sexual harassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 17–34.
nonexperimental studies: New procedures and recommendations. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,
Psychological Methods, 7, 422–445. M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization
Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F. (1999). Social dominance: An intergroup theory. New York: Blackwell.
theory of social hierarchy and oppression. New York: Cambridge Walsh, B. M., & Hitlan, R. T. (2007). Organizational stress: Investigating
University Press. the impact of dual harassment experiences on appraisal and
Smith, E. R. (1993). Social identity and social emotions: Toward new outcomes. North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 331–346.
conceptualizations of prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined
(Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 15–30.
group perception (pp. 297–315). San Diego: Academic. Wright, S. C., Taylor, D. M., & Moghaddam, F. M. (1990).
Smith, E. R. (1999). Affective and cognitive implications of a group Responding to membership in a disadvantaged group: From
becoming part of the self: New models of prejudice and of the self- acceptance to collective protest. Journal of Personality and
concept. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity and Social Psychology, 58, 994–1003.
social cognition (pp. 183–196). Oxford: Blackwell. Yzerbyt, V., Dumont, M., Wigboldus, D., & Gordijn, E. (2003). I feel
Smith, E. R., Seger, C. R., & Mackie, D. M. (2007). Can emotions be for us: The impact of categorization and identification on
truly group level? Evidence regarding four conceptual criteria. emotions and action tendencies. British Journal of Social
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 431–446. Psychology, 42, 533–549.
Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you say?!: Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1965). Manual for the multiple affect
Women’s public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal adjective checklist. San Diego: Educational and Industrial Testing
of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68–88. Service.