These notes were prepared by Professor Michael Flood in September 2021, to guide a largescale organisation in Australia in its development of bystander education to prevent and reduce workplace sexual harassment.

General principles for effective education

There are some general principles for effective education that can be applied to education and training strategies focused on bystander intervention in sexual harassment. Such strategies are more likely to generate change if they:

1. Are embedded in a whole-of-institution strategy, in which their content is reinforced by policies, leadership, and other strategies;
2. Address the drivers of sexual harassment and are guided by a framework for how they will make change;
3. Involve effective forms of teaching and learning, that are participatory, interactive, provided by skilled educators, and of sufficient duration and intensity;
4. Are relevant to the target audience and their contexts [1]

Designing effective learning experiences

Each of these characteristics of effective education is explored further in the section “Violence prevention education: Principles of effective practice” further below. They are also explored at length e.g. in Flood’s chapter [2]. However, here is some further commentary. Commentary on bystander intervention in particular is further below.

Good practice violence prevention education programs are embedded in a whole-of-institution strategy. They are part of a comprehensive approach, using multiple strategies, in multiple settings, and at multiple levels [3, 4]. Education programs should be only one component of a broader approach intended to foster gender equality across the organisation [5].

Effective prevention education programs are interactive, participatory, and include small-group learning. Traditional, lecture-based methods of delivery are ineffective in violence prevention [6]. Face-to-face education should include participatory discussion, group work, cooperative learning, role plays, introspection and critical reflection, and behavioural rehearsal. In short, education must involve active learning [7].

Good practice programs have sufficient duration to make change. One-off, short-duration education sessions will not achieve lasting change in violence-related attitudes or behaviours [8]. Programs ideally should have multiple sessions, complemented by refresher or booster sessions.

Sexual harassment education and training is more likely to have positive, significant, and lasting impacts on knowledge, beliefs, and behaviours if it:

• Lasts for at least four hours;
• Is participatory, interactive, and immersive;
• Is tailored or customised for the participants and/or the setting, organisation, or industry
• Is taught by a supervisor or external expert;
• Offers specific examples of inappropriate conduct;
• Involves clear and accessible descriptions of standards of behaviour;
• Clearly communicates behavioural expectations;
• Teaches behavioural skills;
• Is driven by a substantive concern with preventing and reducing sexual harassment rather than merely box-checking and legal compliance;
• Has strong leadership support – if it is supported and reinforced by management [9-11].

The impact of training is influenced by the organisational context around the training, as two studies show. One found that training’s impact on knowledge and personal attitudes was greater for employees who perceived that their work unit was ethical. Another found that employees’ perception that the organisation tolerated sexual harassment influenced their cynicism about training and their motivations to learn, over and above their own personal beliefs about sexual harassment [9].

In delivering sexual harassment education programs, support and referral processes should be in place to deal with disclosures of harassment victimisation, act on complaints, and protect bystanders.

(There is debate over the relative efficacy of face-to-face and online teaching methods, and these notes leave this aside.)

The existing evidence base

The evidence base for the effectiveness of sexual harassment training and education is weak. While training and education programs are widespread, few have been evaluated, and existing evaluations often are methodologically poor. Many evaluations involve post-training-only designs, questionable or non-existent comparison groups, short (occasionally immediate) post-training assessment, and small, student-only samples [12]. Evaluations often concern programs designed by researchers and tested among university students, rather than training that is actually implemented in the workplace [12].

Nevertheless, there is evidence that education and training programs can shift knowledge and attitudes regarding sexual harassment. Anti-sexual harassment training has been show in various studies to:

• Increase knowledge about sexual harassment: including about what counts as sexual harassment, thus increasing the propensity among men for example to identify sexually harassing behaviour [13-18];
• Result in increased reporting, indicating that complainants are more willing to come forward, at least for some forms of sexual harassment [12, 19];
• Result in lower endorsement of sexual harassment myths and less victim blaming [20];
• Increase bystanders’ intentions to intervene, confidence to intervene, and actual intervention [21, 22].

There is far less robust evidence that sexual harassment training has prevented or reduced harassment. Few programs have been evaluated for their impacts on actual harassing behaviour [9].

Address the known risk factors

Programs seeking to reduce and prevent sexual harassment must address the risk factors for this behaviour. That is, they must address the drivers, determinants, or causes of sexual harassment, the factors known to make perpetration, victimisation, and bystander inaction more likely.

Risk factors for sexual harassment have been identified at several levels.

Some environment or situational characteristics are associated with higher levels of sexual harassment, such as:

• Organisational tolerance e.g. through formal or informal policies and practices that allow sexual harassment to continue, the ‘permissiveness’ towards sexual harassment of the organisational climate [9, 23-26]
  • “Social situations in which sexist views and sexually harassing behavior are modeled can enable, facilitate, or even encourage sexually harassing behaviors, while, conversely, positive role models can inhibit sexually harassing behavior” [9].
• The gendered characteristics of the workplace, e.g. male-dominated environments and gender ratios [24].
  • There are higher levels of sexual harassment among women working in environments where men outnumber women, leadership is male-dominated, and/or jobs or occupations are considered atypical for women [9]
  • Note that workplaces’ historical and cultural context also is relevant, “since environments that are no longer male dominated in gender ratio may still be male dominated in their work practices, culture, or behavioral expectations” [9]
• Other occupational and organisational characteristics, including significant power differentials within hierarchical organisations, organisational tolerance of alcohol use [9], and other factors.
• The extent of uncivil behaviour in the organisation and the organisation’s ‘justice climate’ [27].

Perpetration: Personal characteristics are seen to make some men more likely to perpetrate sexual harassment than others. Men are more likely to perpetrate sexual harassment if they:

• Have “high levels of hos­tile sexism, rape myth acceptance, authoritarianism, endorsement of traditional gender roles and masculine ideology, and low levels of agreeableness, openness to experience, and empathy” [28].
  • Perpetrators are more likely than other men to hold harassment-supportive cognitions, e.g. to endorse rape myths and blame victims [25].
• Endorse sexist norms e.g. of male dominance, such that they are motivated to protect men’s power when they perceive it as threatened, or of traditional masculinity, such that they target other men who deviate from this [29]
• Link sex and power, e.g. combining a search for sexual arousal and/or sexual satisfaction and a need for power over women or another victim group [25, 28]
• Have a ‘social dominance orientation’, a preference for hierarchical group relations [28], or show personal irresponsibility, lack of social conscience, lack of empathy, and exoneration and legitimisation of aggression, particularly against women [25].
• Are predisposed to feel gender identity threats [30] or status threats [31], and engage in sexual harassment as a way to bolster their gender identity or defending it when it is perceived as threatened [28] and to defend their sense of masculinity [29]. 

Note that some of the characteristics above feed into some forms of sexual harassment perpetration more than others. For example, gender identity protection is linked especially to the form of sexual harassment termed gender harassment, aimed less at gaining sexual satisfaction and more at offending women, with the behaviour intended to enhance or protect the status of one’s own gender group – of men [28].

At the level of individual characteristics (attitudes and beliefs and other psychological and emotional variables), perpetration of sexual harassment has some of the same risk factors as perpetration of sexual aggression [25]. However, little is known about:

• Whether there are different types of perpetrators, involved in differing patterns of sexual harassment. There have been various efforts to develop typologies of harassers – e.g. ‘hardcore’, ‘opportunist’, and ‘insensitive’ – but there is little research on these [25].
• How sexual harassment perpetrators compare with other sexual aggressors, and why some individuals go on to commit more serious forms of sexual violence while others do not [25].

Victimisation: Some characteristics are associated with higher levels of victimisation – and articulating this has to be done carefully to avoid victim-blaming. There are higher rates of sexual harassment victimisation among:

• Women who are temporary work­ers, employees in lower administrative occupa­tions, or in male-dominated jobs [28]
• People who have low status and less power, including women and men who are in financially vulnerable positions, younger workers, temporary workers, and people of colour [29]
• Women who violate gender norms, whether through personality factors (e.g., exhibiting masculine traits) or occupational factors (e.g., occupying a traditionally masculine job, having a higher position or organisational power, or with higher levels of education) [23, 28, 29]
• Women who are younger, of colour, of ethnic minorities, or lesbian and bisexual [9, 23, 24, 29]

Bystander action: There is also research on the factors that shape bystander action in response to sexual harassment. Whether observers intervene or speak up, or do nothing, is shaped by both individual factors (their knowledge of sexual harassment, attitudes towards sexual harassment, sense of responsibility to intervene, etc.) and situational factors (the severity of the incident, the relationship between the actor and the target, the organisational climate, etc.) [23].

Challenge sexual harassment myths

Education programs should address sexual harassment myths: beliefs about sexual harassment that are false, but widely held, and that serve to deny, excuse, or justify sexual harassment. Two common myths are that victims are responsible for the event, because of their behaviour or dress, and that victims lie or misinterpret perpetrators’ behaviours [32].

These sexual harassment myths feed into:

• Perpetration, in giving perpetrators license to deny or excuse their behaviour;
• Victimisation, in encouraging victims to blame and doubt themselves;
• Bystander inaction, in fostering victim-blaming and lesser willingness to intervene.

Sexual harassment education therefore must explicitly counter and discredit such myths [32]. Note that it is more effective to lead with the fact, not the myth, adopting a structure of Fact-Myth-Fallacy [33].

Engage men

It is harder in general to engage and educate men than women about sexual harassment. Men start off with more limited definitions of harassment, poorer knowledge, and greater acceptance of harassment-supportive norms than women  [24]. More generally, men start off with poorer understandings of and greater support for gender inequality than women. Men therefore typically are less receptive and more resistant to sexual harassment education efforts.

Nevertheless, there are ways to engage and educate men effectively. Positive and strengths-based approaches are seen to be more effective in fostering men’s initial engagement and participation. Such approaches personalise the issue by appealing to men’s care and concern for the women and girls they know, appeal to higher values and principles, show that men will benefit, start where men are, and build on strengths [2]. At the same time, programs with male participants should not be so oriented to the ‘positive’ that they neglect to challenge harassment-supportive norms and behaviours, encourage critical attention to gender inequalities, and nurture equitable practices and relations among their participants.

Prevent and respond to resistance

Education programs should plan for resistance. Resistance and backlash – negative, defensive, and hostile reactions – are common in sexual harassment education and other forms of violence prevention education. 

Various strategies can be used to prevent, reduce, and respond effectively to resistance and backlash. A recent guide, Engaging Men: Reducing Resistance and Building Support (2021), describes these under four themes: working strategically to build support, planning and framing the event, running the event, and taking care of ourselves and others [34].

Incorporate bystander intervention

Bystander intervention is an important approach to incorporate into sexual harassment education. 

Introducing bystanders and bystander intervention

In violence prevention and elsewhere there is growing attention to ‘bystanders’ – individuals who observe an act of violence, discrimination, or other problematic behaviour but are not its direct perpetrator or victim. In broad terms, bystander approaches focus on the ways in which individuals who are not the targets of the conduct can intervene in violence, harassment or other anti-social behavior in order to prevent and reduce harm to others (Powell, 2011).

Bystanders are onlookers, spectators or otherwise present in some sense. Work on bystanders to violence distinguishes between ‘passive’ bystanders, who do not act or intervene, and ‘active’ bystanders, who take action. Active or pro-social bystanders may take action to:

1. Stop the perpetration of a specific incident of harassment;
2. Reduce the risk of harassment escalating, and prevent the physical, psychological and social harms that may result;
3. Strengthen the conditions that work against harassment occurring.

Most attention to bystanders has focused on their action or inaction at the time of specific violent incidents. However, an emphasis on the primary prevention of sexual harassment and other forms of violence redirects our attention to the third category of action above. It invites a focus on the roles people can play, not just in responding directly to victims and perpetrators, but in challenging the attitudes and norms, behaviours, and inequalities which feed into harassment and violence.

Address the barriers to bystander action

An influential early account identifies five barriers to bystander helping behaviour: (a) failure to notice that a situation is occurring, (b) failure to identify that a situation is high risk, (c) failure to feel responsible to intervene in what is occurring, (d) failure to intervene due to skill deficits, and (e) failure to intervene due to the fear of looking foolish [35].

Bystander intervention education should address each of these barriers:

• Failure to notice that a situation is occurring; Failure to identify that a situation is of high risk: Increase participants’ awareness of sexual harassment. Give them practice in evaluating ambiguous scenes and provide feedback on which situations in each scene they correctly and incorrectly evaluate.
• Failure to feel responsible to intervene in what is occurring: Teach participants to understand that they are responsible for what occurs around, and encouraging their automatic intervention in situations.
• Failure to intervene due to skill deficits: Teach participants the necessary skills to intervene. Given them practice until they feel comfortable to perform these.
• Failure to intervene due to the fear of looking foolish: Teach participants that their actions will not be perceived negatively by others [32].

However, bystander action also is constrained, or enabled, by wider cultural and structural factors, including two in particular: social norms, and power differences.

Social norms: Individuals may have knowledge, skills, and confidence to intervene, but they are more likely actually to intervene if they perceive that doing so is the norm. Individuals are more likely to feel responsible for intervening, and actually to intervene, if they perceive that others around them endorse and expect such behaviour [36]. This means that sexual harassment prevention also should involve efforts intended to shift group and organisational norms.

Power differences: Recent research has highlighted that further reasons why bystanders do not take action include differences or inequalities in power, position, and status, and organisational climates of tolerance for the problematic behaviour [37]. Individuals are more likely to confront someone engaging in sexually harassing behaviours if the perpetrator is a peer or subordinate, not someone higher in power [38].

Bystander approaches in workplaces must acknowledge the considerable differences in power among staff, associated with both their formal roles and status and other characteristics such as their age, gender, class, cultural background, degree of gender conformity, and so on [39]. Taking bystander action is likely to be particularly difficult, and indeed risky, for individuals who are formally or informally in subordinate positions. 

Bystander education should acknowledge and address such power differences in the kinds of strategies it encourages [39]. Bystander approaches should engage leaders as active bystanders (and engage them first if in an organisational culture still tolerant of sexual harassment). Leaders can set the standard for acceptable and expected behaviours, serving as models for other organisational employees to follow [36].

Promote empathy

Education should include activities to promote empathy for victim-survivors.  One effective strategy is perspective taking, in which participants consider situations from the viewpoints, feelings, and reactions of others [32]. Various strategies can be used to encourage participants’ empathy [2].

Shift perceptions of costs and benefits

Bystanders weigh the costs and benefits of intervening in making decisions about whether and how to involve themselves [40]. Bystander intervention education therefore should seek to increase the perceived benefits of intervening and reduce the perceived costs. It should also seek to increase the likelihood of high level involvement (direct confrontation with harasser or offering support to victims publicly), as such involvement is likely to be more beneficial because actions taken publicly are more salient than actions taken in private settings  [32].

Citation: Flood, M. (2021). Education for bystander intervention in sexual harassment. Unpublished, September 13 2021.

Appendix: Violence prevention education: Principles of effective practice

Source: Flood, M., L. Fergus, and M. Heenan. (2009). Respectful Relationships Education: Violence prevention and respectful relationships education in Victorian secondary schools. Melbourne: Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, State of Victoria.

(1) A whole-of-institution approach

Programs should be based on a whole-of-institution approach, involving the adoption of comprehensive and multi-pronged intervention strategies.

In a school for example, this should operate across

• Curriculum, teaching and learning;
• School policy and practices;
• School culture, ethos and environment;
• The relationships between school, home and the community.

A whole-of-school approach involves;

• Comprehensive curriculum integration;
• Assessment and reporting;
  • Standards and accountability systems: Collection of data on students’ outcomes and competencies and on school climate.
• Specialised training and resources for teaching and support staff;
• Reinforcement of violence prevention programming through school policies, structures, and processes.

(2) A program framework and logic

Programs should:

• Incorporate an appropriate theoretical framework for understanding violence, which:
  • Addresses the links between gender, power, and violence, examining violence-supportive constructions of gender and sexuality, and fostering gender-equitable and egalitarian relations.
• Incorporate a theory of change – an account of the ways in which project content and processes will be used to achieve the project’s intended outcomes. 

(3) Effective curriculum delivery

This has four dimensions: content, delivery (teaching methods), structure (duration and intensity, timing, and group composition), and staff (teachers and educators)

a) Curriculum content

Programs should:

• Be informed by feminist scholarship on violence against girls and women;
• Address various forms of violence;
• Target the antecedents to or determinants of violent behaviour;
• Address not only attitudes but also behaviours, interpersonal relations, and collective and institutional contexts.

b) Curriculum delivery (teaching methods)

Programs should:

• Be interactive and participatory.
• Involve the use of quality teaching materials.
• Address cognitive, affective, and behavioural domains.
• Be matched to stages of change.
• Give specific attention to skills development.
• Respond appropriately to participants’ disclosures of victimisation and perpetration.

c) Curriculum structure

Programs should:

• Be of sufficient duration and intensity to produce change.
• Be timed and crafted to suit children’s and young people’s developmental needs, including their developing identities and social and sexual relations.
• Have clear rationales for their use of single-sex and/or mixed-sex groups, including an understanding of the merits and drawbacks of each.

d) Staff: teachers and educators

Programs should:

• Be delivered by skilled teachers and/or educators;
  • Supported by resources, training, and ongoing support.
• Have clear rationales for their use of teachers, community educators, and/or peer educators;
• Have clear rationales for, or a critical understanding of, their use of female and/or male staff.

(4) Relevant, inclusive, and culturally sensitive practice

Programs should:

• Be relevant, that is, informed in all cases by knowledge of their target group or population and their local contexts.     
• Be inclusive and culturally sensitive, embodying these principles in all stages of program design, implementation and evaluation.
• Involve consultation with representatives or leaders from the population group(s) participating in the program where appropriate. 

(5) Impact evaluation

Programs should involve a comprehensive process of evaluation, which at minimum:

• Reflects the program framework and logic;
• Includes evaluation of impact or outcomes, through;
  • Pre- and post-intervention assessment.
  • Long-term follow-up.
• Includes a process for dissemination of program findings in the violence prevention field.

And which ideally includes:

• The use of standard measures or portions of them;
• Longitudinal evaluation including lengthy follow-up at six-months or longer;
• Measures of not only attitudes but also behaviours;
• Examination of processes of change and their mediators;
• Experimental or quasi-experimental design incorporating control or comparison schools, students, or groups.

References cited

1.         Flood, M., L. Fergus, and M. Heenan, Respectful Relationships Education: Violence prevention and respectful relationships education in Victorian secondary schools. 2009, Department of Education and Early Childhood Development, State of Victoria: Melbourne.

2.         Flood, M., Engaging Men and Boys in Violence Prevention. 2019: Palgrave Macmillan.

3.         Casey, E. and T.P. Lindhorst, Toward a Multi-Level, Ecological Approach to the Primary Prevention of Sexual Assault: Prevention in Peer and Community Contexts. Trauma, Violence, & Abuse, 2009. 10(2): p. 91-114.

4.         Nation, M., et al., What works in prevention: Principles of effective prevention programs. American Psychologist, 2003. 58(6-7): p. 449-456.

5.         Our Watch, Putting the prevention of violence against women into practice: How to Change The Story. 2017, Our Watch: Melbourne.

6.         Ellis, J., Primary prevention of domestic abuse through education, in Literature review: better outcomes for children and young people affected by domestic abuse–directions for good practice, C. Humphreys, C. Houghton, and J. Ellis, Editors. 2008, Scottish Government: Edinburgh.

7.         Gibbons, R.E., The Evaluation of Campus-Based Gender Violence Prevention Programming: What We Know about Program Effectiveness and Implications for Practitioners, in VAWnet Applied Research paper. 2013, National Resource Center on Domestic Violence.

8.         DeGue, S., Preventing Sexual Violence on College Campuses: Lessons from Research and Practice. 2014, Prepared for the White House Task Force to Protect Students from Sexual Assault.

9.         National Academies of Sciences, E., and Medicine, Sexual Harassment of Women: Climate, Culture, and Consequences in Academic Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. 2018, The National Academies Press: Washington, DC.

10.       Roehling, M.V. and J. Huang, Sexual harassment training effectiveness: An interdisciplinary review and call for research. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2018. 39(2): p. 134-150.

11.       Kalinoski, Z.T., et al., A meta‐analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 2013. 34(8): p. 1076-1104.

12.       Magley, V.J., et al., Changing sexual harassment within organizations via training interventions: Suggestions and empirical data, in The fulfilling workplace: The organization’s role in achieving individual and organizational health, R.J. Burke, Editor. 2013, Routledge. p. 225-246.

13.       Blakely, G.L., E.H. Blakely, and R.H. Moorman, The effects of training on perceptions of sexual harassment allegations. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1998. 28(1): p. 71-83.

14.       Bonate, D.L. and J.C. Jessell, The effects of educational intervention on perceptions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 1996. 35(11): p. 751-764.

15.       Kearney, L.K., A.B. Rochlen, and E.B. King, Male Gender Role Conflict, Sexual Harassment Tolerance, and the Efficacy of a Psychoeducative Training Program. Psychology of Men & Masculinity, 2004. 5(1): p. 72-82.

16.       Moyer, R.S. and A. Nath, Some effects of brief training interventions on perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1998. 28(4): p. 333–56.

17.       Sabitha, M., Sexual harassment awareness training at workplace: Can it effect administrators’ perception? JOAAG, 2008. 3(2): p. 1-16.

18.       Antecol, H. and D. Cobb-clark, Does Sexual Harassment Training Change Attitudes? A View from the Federal Level. Social Science Quarterly, 2003. 84(4): p. 826-842.

19.       Goldberg, C.B., The impact of training and conflict avoidance on responses to sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 2007. 31(1): p. 62-72.

20.       Lonsway, K.A., L.M. Cortina, and V.J. Magley, Sexual harassment mythology: Definition, conceptualization, and measurement. Sex Roles, 2008. 58(9): p. 599-615.

21.       Dobbin, F. and A. Kalev, The promise and peril of sexual harassment programs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 2019. 116(25): p. 12255-12260.

22.       Taket, A. and B. Crisp, Bystanders for Primary Prevention: a rapid review. 2017, Deakin University: Melbourne.

23.       Chawla, N., et al., From #MeToo to #TimesUp: Identifying Next Steps in Sexual Harassment Research in the Organizational Sciences. Journal of Management, 2021. 47(3): p. 551-566.

24.       Pina, A. and T.A. Gannon, An overview of the literature on antecedents, perceptions and behavioural consequences of sexual harassment. Journal of Sexual Aggression, 2012. 18(2): p. 209-232.

25.       Pina, A., T.A. Gannon, and B. Saunders, An overview of the literature on sexual harassment: Perpetrator, theory, and treatment issues. Aggression and violent behavior, 2009. 14(2): p. 126-138.

26.       Fitzgerald, L. and L. Cortina, Sexual harassment in work organizations: A view from the twenty-first century, in APA handbook of the psychology of women: Perspectives on women's private and public lives, C.B. Travis, et al., Editors. 2017, American Psychological Association: Washington, DC. p. 215-234.

27.       Rubino, C., et al., And justice for all: How organizational justice climate deters sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 2018. 71(4): p. 519-544.

28.       Maass, A., M. Cadinu, and S. Galdi, Sexual harassment: Motivations and consequences, in The Sage handbook of gender and psychology, M.K. Ryan and N.R. Branscombe, Editors. 2013, Sage: Thousand Oaks, CA. p. 341-358.

29.       Minnotte, K.L. and E.M. Legerski, Sexual harassment in contemporary workplaces: Contextualizing structural vulnerabilities. Sociology Compass, 2019. 13.

30.       Maass, A., et al., Sexual harassment under social identity threat: the computer harassment paradigm. Journal of personality and social psychology, 2003. 85(5): p. 853.

31.       Halper, L.R. and K. Rios, Feeling Powerful but Incompetent: Fear of Negative Evaluation Predicts Men’s Sexual Harassment of Subordinates. Sex Roles, 2019. 80(5): p. 247-261.

32.       Lee, S.Y., M.D. Hanson, and H.K. Cheung, Incorporating bystander intervention into sexual harassment training. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2019. 12(1): p. 52-57.

33.       Flood, M., M. Dragiewicz, and B. Pease, Resistance and Backlash to Gender Equality: An evidence review. 2018, Queensland University of Technology (QUT),: Brisbane.

34.       Flood, M., et al., Engaging Men: Reducing Resistance and Building Support. 2021, Eastern Health, Eastern Domestic Violence Service (EDVOS), and Queensland University of Technology (QUT). Melbourne.

35.       Latane, B. and J.M. Darley, The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn't he help? 1970, New York, NY: Appleton-Century Crofts.

36.       Meyer, C. and A.I. Zelin, Bystander as a Band-Aid: How organization leaders as active bystanders can influence culture change. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 2019. 12(3): p. 342-344.

37.       McDonald, P., S. Charlesworth, and T. Graham, Action or inaction: bystander intervention in workplace sexual harassment. The International Journal of Human Resource Management, 2016. 27(5): p. 548-566.

38.       Ashburn-Nardo, L., et al., Do you say something when it’s your boss? The role of perpetrator power in prejudice confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 2014. 70: p. 615-636.

39.       Women’s Health Victoria, Working With Workplaces: challenges and opportunities for workplace violence prevention and bystander programs. 2018, Women’s Health Victoria,: Melbourne.

40.       McDonald, P., S. Charlesworth, and T. Graham, Developing a framework of effective prevention and response strategies in workplace sexual harassment. Asia Pacific Journal of Human Resources, 2015. 53(1): p. 41-58.