Binding moral values linked to support for perpetrators of sexual harassment

Being the target of sexual harassment and misconduct in the workplace can have not only a massive impact to mental health, but also affect the mechanics of working life. Previous research has found that women who speak up about sexual misconduct are more likely to experience consequences such as job loss, decreased job satisfaction, and ostracism at work. Male perpetrators, however, are far less likely to experience the same. 

A new paper, published February 2023 in Organization Science, takes a closer look at this phenomenon. Their findings suggest that not only can reporting sexual misconduct be seen as more morally offensive than the misconduct itself, but that sympathy towards perpetrators and anger towards victims can drive unjust outcomes.

This paper's first study sought to explore the relationship between perpetrator-directed sympathy, victim-directed anger, and moral sentiment. To do this, the team randomly drew 2000 victim-directed tweets and 2000 perpetrator-directed tweets from a dataset of 285,000 tweets collected during the #MeToo movement. To ensure these messages captured initial reactions, the team only included tweets sent within 30 days of the initial allegation. 

They then analysed this sample using a number of metrics. The first was the extended Moral Foundations Dictionary, an algorithm which scores words based on five moral foundations: harm/care, fairness/reciprocity, ingroup/loyalty, authority/respect, and purity/sanctity. Independent coders also coded each tweet for the presence of sympathy and anger directed towards the subject of the tweet. 

Analyses showed that tweets containing "binding" moral rhetoric – measured by high scores of loyalty, authority, and purity – were more likely to direct anger towards victims (though this was not a significant relationship). Binding moral language was also linked to perpetrator-directed sympathy, suggesting that such language is linked with anger towards victims and sympathy towards alleged perpetrators, regardless of the content of the allegations.

The second study looked specifically at the allegations against Judge Brett Kavanaugh by Dr. Christine Ford. Similar to the first study, participants again filled in a number of surveys based on moral foundations, as well as sympathy and anger towards both Ford and Kavanaugh. They then indicated both Ford and Kavanaugh in on several factors of credibility.

This study found increased endorsement of binding moral foundations was strongly associated with both feelings of anger towards Dr. Ford and increased feelings of sympathy towards Judge Kavanaugh. Anger towards Dr. Ford was also negatively associated with judgements of her credibility: those who were angry towards her also felt she was less credible. The opposite was true for Kavanaugh: sympathy towards him positively correlated with belief in his credibility. 

The third study used the same measures as the last, plus one new measure related to social punishment. Participants were asked to imagine two fictional coworkers, Jenny and Steve, one of whom was the victim of sexual misconduct and one of whom was the alleged perpetrator. They were then asked how much they agreed with statements such as "I would recommend the [perpetrator/accusing victim] for future leadership positions" and "I would be willing to work with the [alleged perpetrator/accusing victim] if they were transferred to my team." 

Again, binding moral concerns influenced the credibility of perpetrators and victims, via perpetrator-directed sympathy and victim-directed anger. And while victim-directed anger played a part, sympathy towards perpetrators played a bigger role. Similarly, a fourth study in which participants recalled an instance of misconduct found that victim credibility was negatively associated with support of punishment for the victim, while believing in perpetrator credibility was negatively associated with support of punishment for the perpetrator, indicating the potential for real world impact. 

The final study looked at whether third party leaders could influence these types of responses in the workplace. First, 832 American worker participants read the vignette about Jenny and Steve from the third study, then were told that the incident was investigated after the allegation occurred, and that comments had been made at work and on social media by people who supported and believed either Steve and Jenny. They were then told that their manager had called a meeting and addressed the issue. In the loyal condition, participants read that Jenny had been described as a loyal person, who would strengthen the organisation as a whole; in the disloyal condition, Jenny was described as treacherous. In the control condition, no such loyalty information was provided. Finally, they completed the moral foundations, perpetrator-directed sympathy, victim-directed anger, credibility, and punishment measures. 

When Jenny was framed as disloyal, anger towards victims and sympathy towards perpetrators increased – but only for those who also adhered to the binding moral principles of loyalty, authority, and purity. These emotions then increased ratings of the perpetrator's credibility and decreased the victim's. However, even framing Jenny as loyal didn't change this when participants valued binding moral foundations; managers who refer to the victim as disloyal may therefore intensify victimisation.

Though this research explores the topic widely, it does have a few limitations worthy of mention. More work needs to be done on understanding the boundaries of moral reframing, as the authors note that the results of study five are inconsistent with previous literature. Further work could also explore these effects with other sex and gender combinations.

Overall, this research suggests that binding moral values predispose people to sympathetic responses to perpetrators but not victims. This then influences both credibility of victims and potential for appropriate real world consequences. The team stresses that their results suggest that organisations should ensure that the confidentiality of victims are protected, avoiding "premature, inequitable social consequences" towards them.