Roger Williams University

DOCS@RWU

Psychology Theses Arts and Sciences Theses

2023

Examining the Effect of Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School

Engagement: The Moderating Role of Gender
Emily Sgritta

Follow this and additional works at: https://docs.rwu.edu/psych_thesis

Part of the Gender and Sexuality Commons, Higher Education Commons, and the Social Psychology
Commons
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 1

Examining the Effect of Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement: The

Moderating Role of Gender

Emily Sgritta

Bachelor of Arts

Psychology

Feinstein School of Social and Natural Sciences

Roger Williams University

May 2023
 2

Benjamin Greenstein 17 May, 2023

Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 3

Contents

Examining the Effect of Witnessing Sexual Harassment and School Engagement: The

Moderating Role of Gender………………………………………………….……………………7

Linking Witnessing Sexual Harassment and School Engagement…………..………………..8

The Moderating Role of Gender…..…………………………………………………………11

Other Factors Related to Sexual Harassment………………..……………………………….12

Method…………………………………………………………………………………………...14

Participants…………………………………………………………………………………...14

Procedures……………………………………………………………………………………15

Measures……………………………………………………………………………………..16

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale………………………………………………..16

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students…………………………………………...16

Results……………………………………………………………………………………………17

Missing Data…………………………………………………………………………………17

Witnessing Sexual Harassment and Gender…………………………………………………17

Witnessing Sexual Harassment, Gender and School Engagement (UWES-S)........................18

School Engagement: Vigor……………………………………………………………...19

School Engagement: Dedication………………………………………………………..19

School Engagement: Absorption………………………………………………………..20

Directly Witnessing Sexual Harassment, Gender, and Psychological Distress (K-10)..........20

Indirectly Witnessing Sexual Harassment, Gender, and Psychological Distress (K-10)........21

Discussion……………………………………………………………………………………….22

Summary of Findings………………………………………………………………………..22
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 4

Theoretical Implications……………………………………………………………………..22

The Lack of an Interaction Effect………………………………………………………..24

Practical Implications………………………………………………………………………...25

Limitations and Future Directions…………………………………………………………...26

References………………………………………………………………………………………..29

Tables and Figures……………………………………………………………………………….3

Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 5

List of Tables and Figures

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations, and Two-Way ANOVAS on Direct Witnessing and

UWES-S………………………………………………………………………………………31

Table 2. Means, Standard Deviations, and Two-Way ANOVAS on Indirectly Witnessing

UWES-S……………………………………………………………………………………….32

Table 3. Means, Standard Deviations, and Two-Way ANOVAS on Directly and Indirectly

Witnessing Psychological Distress……………………………………………………………..33

Figure 1. Directly Witnessing Sexual Harassment and Psychological Distress…………………34

Figure 2. Indirectly Witnessing Sexual Harassment and Psychological Distress……………….35

Figure 3. Directly Witnessing Sexual Harassment and School Engagement……………………36

Figure 4. Indirectly Witnessing Sexual Harassment and School Engagement…………………..37

Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 6

Abstract

The following study investigated the potential relationships between directly or indirectly

witnessing sexual harassment, the witness’ gender, school engagement, and psychological

distress. Participants from an undergraduate university (N = 168) responded to a survey in which

they answered questions relating to witnessing sexual harassment and their psychological

distress, burnout, school engagement, and perceived social support after the event. For purposes

of analyses, potential relationships on psychological distress and school engagement were

examined further. Participants who directly witnessed sexual harassment reported lower school

engagement than participants who didn’t report directly witnessing sexual harassment. Direct

witnesses reported lower levels of vigor, dedication, and absorption to their studies, with indirect

witnesses also reporting low absorption. Male participants reported lower levels of psychological

distress than female participants regardless of their status as a witness. Given the prevalence of

sexual harassment in our culture, more research is needed to fully explore the effects of

witnessing it has on people’s mental health and ability to complete their work.

Keywords: sexual harassment, school engagement, psychological distress, witness

incivility, gender
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 7

Examining the Effect of Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement: The

Moderating Role of Gender

Sexual harassment is a prevalent issue as children grow up and begin to understand their

bodies, other’s bodies, and the expectations people have of them based on their gender and the

wider societal culture. Direct sexual harassment is defined as any unwanted sexual behavior that

interferes with a student’s life (American Association of University Women, 1993). The

American Association of University Women found that 81% of students in grades 8-11 surveyed

(85% women, 76% men) experienced this direct form of sexual harassment (American

Association of University Women, 1993). Most research to date has focused on the direct

victimization of the targets of sexual harassment and psychological and physical consequences

victims experienced (e.g., job turnover, absenteeism, nervousness, sleeplessness, weight loss, and

stomach problems; O’Donohue et al., 1998), and there is far less research on the consequences

for someone witnessing sexual harassment (Acquadro et al., 2022). Sexual harassment often

occurred out in the open area of educational spaces, such as in the hallways, cafeteria, or in

classrooms (American Association of University Women, 1993); thus, it is imperative to further

understand the psychological experiences of college students who witness sexual harassment.

School engagement refers to a student’s psychological investment and effort toward

learning, understanding, and mastering knowledge, skills, or crafts associated with academics

(Alrashidi et al., 2016). Engagement has been shown to contribute to better school performance

(as measured by GPA, standardized test scores, assignment completion, etc.; e.g., Blumenfeld, &

Paris, 2004; Greenwood, et al.,; Fredricks, 2002; Marks, 2000; National Research Council,

2004;Suárez-Orozco et al., 2009;). From the ages of 5 to at least 18, school takes up a substantial

portion of people’s lives, and therefore school engagement has critical implications to students’
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 8

overall mental well-being. Research has shown that there is an important link between academic

engagement and student well-being, in that students who perform well on typical measures of

engagement (test scores and grades) usually exhibit higher levels of emotional and behavioral

engagement which then supports future achievements (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013). In

addition, cognitive engagement allows for a more in-depth understanding of the subject material

(Upadyayaa & Salmela-Aro, 2013). Students who are satisfied with their lives overall tend to

value their education more and experience higher levels of cognitive engagement, which in turn

leads to less instances of depressive symptoms (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro). High levels of

school engagement are also associated with positive emotions and adaptive coping which both

lead to a stronger sense of well-being (Upadyaya & Salmela-Aro, 2013).

Linking Witnessing Sexual Harassment and School Engagement

When examining literature on sexual harassment the vast majority of previous works

focuses on outcomes of the victim and perpetrator, and very little has been researched on those

witnessing the sexual harassment as an outsider (Acquadro et al., 2022). However, there is more

broader research that has been done on witnessing incivilities, especially in the workplace

(Schilpzand et al., 2016). Sexual harassment is just one facet of workplace incivility, as it

involves a victim and a perpetrator and often involves ignoring a person’s right to basic respect

(Andersson & Pearson, 1999). While still more research needs to be done on witnessing

incivility, the literature that is present describes negative outcomes related to witnessing an act of

incivility, especially among female witnesses (Schilpzand et al., 2016).

Affective events theory provides an explanation for why witnessing incivility events,

such as harassment, might have a negative effect on the witness’ life after the event (Weiss &

Cropanzano, 1996). Affective events theory focuses heavily on events as proximal causes of
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 9

affective reactions and the fluctuation of affect over time (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). The way

that someone reacts after an incivil event (e.g., angry, sad, apathetic) will then engage in different

behaviors after the event which then in turn affect their performance in work or school

objectively and subjectively (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). In addition, affect heuristics

distinguish positive and negative qualities of a stimulus or event and intertwine the two (O’Reilly

& Aquino, 2011). In essence this heuristic means that if a person feels “bad” about an act that

involves the unfair treatment of one person by another, the person, or witness, will judge that act

as morally wrong in and of itself (O’Reilly & Aquino, 2011). Affective experiences are then

followed by affect driven behaviors (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Within the context of the

proposed study, witnessing sexual harassment is an event in which the victim is treated unfairly

or unjustly by the perpetrator and is appraised as negative by those who witness it. This negative

appraisal induces negative affect which in turn predicts a change in behavior patterns, such as a

lack of engagement.

School engagement can be measured using three dimensions: vigor, dedication and

absorption (Mostert et al., 2007). Vigor is defined as having mental energy and resilience as well

as a willingness to put in effort into one’s work despite difficulties (Mostert et al., 2007).

Dedication relates to feelings of significance, inspiration, and a willingness to tackle challenges

(Mostert et al., 2007). Finally, absorption is characterized by a state of deep concentration on the

work at hand, in which it’s somewhat difficult to pull yourself away (Mostert et al., 2007). Tying

together the affective events theory as it relates to school engagement, these three dimensions

could offer a lens through which decreases in school engagement could be seen. Affective

experiences usually lead to a change in normal behavior in some way to cope with the event

(Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). These behaviors, specifically within the student context, could
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 10

lead to decreases in any or all of the three dimensions. Of the three, absorption might be the most

directly related to affective events theory (Mostert et al., 2007). A negative affective event might

cause a person to detach from the present moment and keep them ruminating on the negative

event of the past, therefore leading to less absorption in their work (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).

Vigor and dedication are more related to the abstract idea of engagement as opposed to the

sustained concentration aspect embodied by absorption (Mostert et al., 2007). However, they are

nonetheless still important aspects of school engagement as they relate to a student’s mental

attitudes about their schoolwork, and can again be negatively affected by witnessing an adverse

event such as sexual harassment (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).

Research examining witnessing sexual harassment in school settings in particular is still

nascent (Acquadro et al., 2022); however, there is a growing body of relevant literature on

witnessing or observing wrongdoings or incivility (especially in the workplace) and its

psychological and behavioral consequences (e.g., O’Reilly & Aquino, 2011; Reich &

Hershcovis, 2015). Sexual harassment is just one example of the broader topic of incivility,

whether it occurs in the workplace or in a school environment (Schilpzand et al., 2016). Research

conducted by Rivers et al. (2009) found that witnessing bullying can have several adverse effects

on the witness’ mental health. Their findings found that children and adolescents who are

exposed to violence, harassment, or bullying were more likely to experience heightened

psychological, social, and emotional concerns (Rivers et al., 2009). The study also found higher

rates of substance abuse among those who were perpetrators in some scenarios and witnesses in

others (Rivers et al., 2009). While slightly different, bullying is similar to sexual harassment in

that both are examples of mistreatment found within an academic or professional setting, and

witnessing either could have observable effects on witnesses. Such findings point to the position
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 11

some play as a “witness” in incivility can have a negative effect on several factors which in turn

could affect a person’s school engagement. Based on the evidence from existing literature, I

hypothesize that:

Hypothesis 1: Individuals reporting witnessing sexual harassment will report lower levels

of school engagement than those who reporting not witnessing sexual harassment.

The Moderating Role of Gender

Gender is a major component of sexual harassment whether examining the gender of the

victim, perpetrator, or the witnesses. For the purposes of this study, the gender of the witness will

be of chief importance. Similarity/attraction theory, originally proposed by Byrne (1971)

provides a basis for the role of gender in witnessing incivility. The theory states that we’re most

attracted towards people who we perceive as similar, and if we have similar demographic

characteristics (such as gender), this attraction is increased (Miner & Eischeid, 2012). If a person

witnesses a person of their same gender being treated in an uncivil way, there will be more

feelings of anger, fear, and anxiety than if the opposite gender is observed (Miner & Eischeid,

2012). In a study done among 7th and 8th graders in Canada, it was found that female students

who experienced sexual harassment but didn’t frequently witness it were at the highest risk for

developing feelings of shame as well as depression (Li & Craig, 2020). Feelings of shame and

depression were found within both female and male students who were victimized (Li & Craig

2020). Those who witnessed others experiencing the same harassment or if the participant was

male, had outcomes of shame and depression which were less than the women mentioned above

(Li & Craig 2020). In contrast with this, Miner & Eischeid found the opposite to be true; if men

observed other men being treated rudely or harassed they reported more negative emotions than

women observing other women (2012). As explained further by Miner & Eischeid (2012),
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 12

discrepancies in reactions of witnessing harassment could be due to more traditional gender roles

and expectations. For example, men may feel more angry than women when witnessing a man

being mistreated because it’s in clear opposition to the power and respect they normally

command from others, whereas women who are observing the behavior may feel more

demoralized because it reinforces their position as “subordinate”, especially in the traditionally

male-dominated workforce.

Another study done within the adolescent population on sexual harassment and bullying

and how that affected school engagement found similar results (Gruber & Fineran, 2015). School

engagement was measured through grades, school satisfaction, academic engagement, teacher

support, and school withdrawal (Gruber & Fineran, 2015). Their results found that, when

compared with bullying, sexual harassment was a stronger predictor for all school outcomes for

both genders, but especially for women (Gruber & Fineran, 2015). The suggested reason for

these results was that since sexual harassment evokes both sexist and heterosexist stereotypes, it

erodes school engagement and alienates the student from teachers and negatively affects their

grades more than bullying does (Gruber & Fineran, 2015). This brings us to our hypothesis:

Hypothesis 2: Among individuals who witnessed sexual harassment, women will show

lower levels of school engagement than men.

Other Factors Related to Sexual Harassment

As stated previously, sexual harassment has a multitude of negative effects on the person

who directly experiences, witnesses, or perhaps indirectly witnesses it. One of the potential

outcomes to be examined in this paper is psychological distress. Psychological distress

encompasses a variety of emotions and feelings a person may experience as a result of an

Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 13

unpleasant event, such as anger, fear, increased withdrawal from others, or symptoms in line with

post-traumatic stress disorder (Collinsworth et al., 2009).

A longitudinal study in which a survey was sent out to Norwegian workers two years

apart found that women who experience sexual harassment later experienced psychological

distress (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). In contrast, psychological distress among men seemed to

predict sexual harassment (Nielsen & Einarsen, 2012). Another study surveyed women who were

either individual plaintiffs in sexual harassment litigation or women involved in class-action

litigation against a nationwide financial organization (Collinsworth et al., 2009). This study

found a strong association across both groups of women between the severity of their experience

and the psychological distress the women felt (in harms). Previous victimization also predicted

negative psychological outcomes (Collinsworth et al., 2009). Finally, the relationship between

sexual harassment and psychological distress as well as alcohol use was examined (Wolff et al.,

2017). The researchers were able to determine that sexual harassment, alcohol use, and

psychological distress are reciprocal and causally related to one another in the contexts of college

students at work as well as within a school setting (Wolff et al., 2017). In line with previous

research, we will further explore:

Hypothesis 3: a) Students reported witnessing sexual harassment will report higher levels

of psychological distress than those who did not report witnessing sexual harassment; b) this

effect will be stronger among women than men.

The perception of having social support around you, whether from family, friends, or a

significant other, could be an important buffer against psychological distress (Bingham & Battey,

2005). Social support consists of communication that is altruistic and aimed at providing advice

or comfort to another person (Bingham & Battey, 2005). When examining how professors at a
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 14

university would respond to a student coming to them about experiencing sexual harassment,

professors mostly provided support in the form of helping the student “problem solve”, with

more emotional comfort being used less often (Bingham & Battey, 2005). Social support was

shown to be a mediator in the relationship between sexual orientation and psychosocial

symptoms in another study looking at adolescents in the LGBTQ+ community (Williams et al.,

2005). When compared to heterosexual adolescents, LGBTQ+ adolescents reported a more

hostile environment and more instances of bullying, however social support was thought to be a

balm in the face of depressive symptoms caused by the youth’s sexual minority status (Williams

et al., 2005). In another study examining LGBTQ+ victimization, both online and in-person

social support reduced the odds of bully victimization (Ybarra et al., 2015). In this study, we will

further probed whether perception of social support would mitigate the negative effect of

witnessing sexual harassment on school engagement and psychological distress.

Method

Participants

Participants were recruited through both the psychology SONA program and social

media at a university in the northeast region of the United States. The complete dataset from

Qualtrics contained 199 responses, including pilots and previews. Pilots and previews were

listwise deleted, leaving a raw sample of 197. After further data cleaning was completed, 168

participants remained. Participants were all 18 years or older and were enrolled as an

undergraduate in university. Participants were deleted for not completing the informed consent,

not completing a substantial portion of the survey, or for completing the survey more than once.

The average age of participants was 19.73 (SD = 1.18), with a range of 18.00 to 24.00 years old

being reported. Age had a positive skew of 0.76 (SE = 0.19), but was still within an acceptable
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 15

range for a normal distribution (<2.00). Kurtosis was 0.61 (SE = 0.37), which is in an acceptable

range for a normal distribution (<2.00).

Of the final sample (N = 168) 157 (93.45%) participated in the survey through SONA

and 11 (6.54%) participated in the study through social media. In the final sample, 154 (91.67%)

of participants identified as white or caucasian, 3 (1.79%) identified as black or African

American, 14 (8.33%) identified as Hispanic or Latino, 1 (0.60%) identified as American Indian

or Alaskan Native, 4 (2.38%) identified as Asian, and 2 (1.19%) listed “other” and specified

Middle Eastern. Fourty (23.81%) of participants identified as male, 121 (72.02%) identified as

female, and 7 (4.17%) identified as nonbinary. In terms of academic year, 43 (25.60%) of

participants were freshmen, 71 (42.26%) were sophomores, 30 (17.86%) were juniors, 23

(13.69%) were seniors, and 1 (0.60%) participant selected “other” and specified they were a

returning student between freshman and sophomore year.

Procedures

Participants were invited to participate in the survey through SONA or through social

media advertisements. All participants agreed to the informed consent document were then

invited to complete a survey including questions related to experiencing or witnessing sexual

harassment and one’s psychological experiences. Specific questions included participant’s direct

or indirect witnessing (e.g., hearing about it through a witness, victim, or perpetrator) of sexual

harassment (yes/no) and elaboration on what they directly or indirectly witnessed without giving

away identifying information, as well as subjectively rating the severity of the event. Participants

were then asked to rate their feelings of psychological distress, burnout, school engagement and

disengagement, and social support using the measures detailed below.

Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 16

Measures

Examples of sexual harassment were given to participants (eg. catcalling, negative

comments on another person’s gender or sex, etc) based on examples from the Department of

Defense Education Activity and Fitzgerald et al. (1999) Sexual Experiences Questionnaire.

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale

The Kessler Psychological Distress Scale (K10) was a 10 item scale developed by

Kessler et al (2000). This scale was used to measure participant’s level of psychological distress

either after they witnessed the sexual harassment or their attitudes in general (if they didn’t

witness/indirectly witness sexual harassment) (e.g., “how often have you felt that everything was

an effort?” All responses were rated on a five point format running from 0 (none of the time) to 4

(all of the time). Responses were scored such that higher values indicate higher psychological

distress. Item scores were averaged to generate an overall measure of K10. Cronbach’s alpha for

this measure was 0.93, which is an acceptable internal consistency.

Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students

The Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S) was developed by

Schaufeli et al. (1996). This scale uses three attributes to measure student engagement: vigor (6

items), dedication (5 items), and absorption (6 items). Examples of items include: “I can

continue for a very long time when I am studying.” (vigor), “I am enthusiastic about my studies.”

(dedication), and “When I am studying, I forget everything else around me.” (absorption). All

items were rated on a seven point scale running from 0 (never) to 6 (always). Responses were

scored such that higher values indicate more vigor, dedication, or absorption to one’s

schoolwork. Item scores were averaged to generate an overall measure of UWES-S as well as

averaged within their own subscales (e.g., all “vigor” items combined). Cronbach’s alpha for this
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 17

measure was 0.93 overall, which is an acceptable internal consistency. The Cronbach’s alpha for

vigor was 0.87, which is an acceptable internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha for dedication was

0.91, an acceptable internal consistency. Cronbach’s alpha for absorption was 0.85, an acceptable

internal consistency.

Results

Missing Data

Survey collection took place from February 25, 2023 to April 6, 2023. The raw sample

size was 197 participants, not including pilot and pretests which were removed. Of the 197

participants, 6 stopped the survey before agreeing to the informed consent, 1 participant stopped

the survey before entering their age, 9 participants completed less than half of the survey, and 4

participants completed less than 70% of the survey. Eight responses were deleted due to a

participant submitting to the survey more than once. In total, 29 participants were deleted due to

missing data or repeated survey attempts. In total, about 15% of the raw sample was deleted due

to missing data, meaning an overall completion rate of 85% for the survey.

Witnessing Sexual Harassment and Gender

Of the final sample size (N = 168), 90 (53.57%) of participants didn’t report witnessing

sexual harassment, while 78 (46.45%) of participants did report witnessing sexual harassment. In

addition, 52 (30.95%) participants didn’t report indirectly witnessing sexual harassment while

116 (69.05%) of participants did report indirectly witnessing sexual harassment. When

determining the percentage of those that directly witnessed sexual harassment by gender, we

found that among men who responded to the survey, 29 (72.50%) of men reported not directly

witnessing sexual harassment and 11 (27.50%) of men reported directly witnessing sexual

harassment. Among women who responded to the survey, 60 (49.58%) reported not directly
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 18

witnessing sexual harassment while 61 (50.41%) reported directly witnessing sexual harassment.

Of those who identified as nonbinary, 1 (14.29%) reported not directly witnessing sexual

harassment while 6 (85.71%) of those identifying as nonbinary reported directly witnessing

sexual harassment.

When breaking up the percentage of participants who reported indirectly witnessing

sexual harassment, we found that among men who responded to the survey, 19 (47.50%) of men

reported not indirectly witnessing sexual harassment while 21 (52.50%) of men reported

indirectly witnessing sexual harassment. Of the women that responded to the survey, 33

(27.27%) of women didn’t report indirectly witnessing sexual harassment in contrast to 88

(72.72%) of female participants who did report indirectly witnessing sexual harassment. Of those

that identified as nonbinary, 7 (100%) reported having indirectly witnessed sexual harassment. In

running statistical analyses, nonbinary individuals were excluded from analyses because of errors

within the statistical program when running ANOVAs Therefore, the final sample size for

ANOVAs was 160.

Witnessing Sexual Harassment, Gender and School Engagement (UWES-S)

In examining the effects of witnessing sexual harassment, gender, and school

engagement, the UWES-S scale was selected for the analyses due to its pertinence to the student

experience and specifically because of its submeasures of vigor, dedication, and absorption

which in combination with the psychological distress measure (K10) provide the most complete

picture of the effects of witnessing sexual harassment on undergraduate students. First, the

UWES-S measure was composited across subscales to provide one wholesome measure of

school engagement. In examining the effects of directly witnessing sexual harassment, gender,

and school engagement, results showed there was a significant effect of directly witnessing
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 19

sexual harassment, F(1, 156) = 7.41, p = 0.007, 𝜂2 = 0.05. There was a non-significant effect of

participant’s gender, F(1, 156) = 0.005, p = 0.942 and a non-significant interaction effect

between participant’s gender and directly witnessing sexual harassment, F(1, 156) = 0.36, p =

0.549. Turkey’s post-hoc test showed that participants who hadn’t directly witnessed sexual

harassment had higher scores on student engagement (M = 3.01, SD = 1.19) contrasted with

participants who did report directly witnessing sexual harassment having lower levels of school

engagement (M = 2.44, SD = 1.02). There were no significant effects found between indirectly

witnessing sexual harassment, gender, and school engagement. For full results, see Tables 1 and

2 and Figures 3 and 4.

School Engagement: Vigor

The UWES-S scale was broken down into its three subsections in order for each to be

analyzed with direct or indirectly witnessing sexual harassment and participant’s gender. When

examining the subscale of vigor with participant’s gender and direct witnessing of sexual

harassment, results showed a significant effect of directly witnessing sexual harassment on vigor

scores, F(1, 156) = 6.20, p =0.014, 𝜂2 = 0.04. There was a non-significant effect of participant’s

gender, F(1, 156) = 0.76, p =0.383, and a non-significant interaction effect of participant’s

gender with directly witnessing sexual harassment, F(1, 156) = 0.28, p =0.595. There were no

significant effects found when analyzing vigor, participant gender, and indirectly witnessing

sexual harassment (see Tables 1 and 2).

School Engagement: Dedication

When examining the subscale of dedication with participant’s gender and direct

witnessing of sexual harassment, results showed a significant effect of directly witnessing sexual

harassment on dedication scores, F(1, 156) = 4.62, p =0.033, 𝜂2 = 0.02. There was a
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 20

non-significant effect of participant’s gender, F(1, 156) = 0.93, p = 0.336, and a non-significant

interaction effect of participant’s gender with directly witnessing sexual harassment, F(1, 156) =

0.75, p = 0.389. There were no significant effects found when analyzing dedication, participant

gender, and indirectly witnessing sexual harassment (see Tables 1 and 2).

School Engagement: Absorption

When examining the subscale of absorption with participant’s gender and direct

witnessing of sexual harassment, results showed a significant effect of directly witnessing sexual

harassment on absorption scores, F(1, 156) = 5.91, p = 0.016, 𝜂2 = 0.04. There was a

non-significant effect of participant’s gender, F(1, 156) = 0.002, p = 0.962, and a non-significant

interaction effect of participant’s gender with directly witnessing sexual harassment, F(1, 156) =

0.01, p = 0.918. When examining absorption scores with participant’s gender and indirect

witnessing of sexual harassment, results showed a significant effect of indirectly witnessing

sexual harassment on absorption scores F(1, 156) = 5.37, p = 0.022, 𝜂2 = 0.03. There was a

non-significant effect of participant’s gender, F(1, 156) = 0.01, p = 0.905, and a non-significant

interaction effect of participant’s gender with directly witnessing sexual harassment, F(1, 156) =

0.02, p = 0.892 (see Tables 1 and 2).

Directly Witnessing Sexual Harassment, Gender, and Psychological Distress (K-10)

For the purposes of testing the hypotheses related to directly witnessing sexual

harassment, gender, and psychological distress, a two-way ANOVA was used. In examining the

effects of directly witnessing sexual harassment and gender on psychological distress, results

showed there was a significant effect of gender, F(1, 156) = 6.16, p = 0.014, 𝜂2 = 0.03. In

addition, results showed there was a significant effect of directly witnessing sexual harassment,

F(1, 156) = 26.25, p < 0.001, 𝜂2 = 0.14. There was a non-significant interaction effect between
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 21

gender and directly witnessing sexual harassment, F(1, 156) = 0.46, p = 0.499. Turkey’s post-hoc

test showed that participants who identified as male and didn’t report directly witnessing sexual

harassment had the lowest amount of psychological distress (M = 0.59, SD = 0.12) whereas

women who reported directly witnessing sexual harassment had the highest amount of

psychological distress (M = 1.73, SD = 0.78). This suggests that both the gender of the

participant as well as whether or not they directly witnessed sexual harassment had an effect on

their feelings of psychological distress following the incident, with women showing higher

psychological distress than men when they directly witnessed sexual harassment (see Table 3 and

Figure 1).

Indirectly Witnessing Sexual Harassment, Gender, and Psychological Distress (K-10)

For the purposes of testing the hypotheses related to indirectly witnessing sexual

harassment, gender, and psychological distress, a two-way ANOVA was used. In examining the

effects of indirectly witnessing sexual harassment, gender, and psychological distress, results

showed there was a significant effect of gender, F (1, 156) = 12.92, p < 0.001, 𝜂2 = 0.08.

Turkey’s post-hoc test showed that participants who identified as male had significantly lower

scores on the psychological distress scale (M = 0.82, SD = 0.82) than participants who identified

as female (M = 1.37, SD = 0.80). There was a nonsignificant effect of indirectly witnessing

sexual harassment, F (1, 156) = 0.06, p = 0.802 as well as a nonsignificant interaction effect

between gender and indirectly witnessing sexual harassment, F (1, 156) = 0.006, p = 0.941 (see

Table 3 and Figure 2). These results suggest that only the participant’s gender had bearing on

their feelings of psychological distress after indirectly witnessing sexual harassment, while the

act of indirect witnessing didn’t have an effect at all. As in the direct witnessing results, women

had higher scores of psychological distress than men across conditions.

Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 22

Discussion

Summary of Findings

Based on the results of analyses, we can draw several conclusions. Firstly, directly

witnessing sexual harassment had an overall effect on student engagement. More specifically

directly witnessing sexual harassment was related to decreased amounts of vigor, dedication and

absorption when compared to participants who didn’t directly witness sexual harassment.

Indirectly witnessing sexual harassment didn’t have a significant effect on overall school

engagement scores, however it did appear to affect participant’s absorption, as participants who

indirectly witnessed sexual harassment overall reported lower levels of absorption than those

who didn’t indirectly witness sexual harassment. This partially supports our first hypothesis. Our

second hypothesis wasn’t supported, as gender wasn’t found to significantly affect school

engagement of witnesses. Directly witnessing sexual harassment was related to higher levels of

psychological distress, with women reporting more psychological distress than men. We found

that participants who indirectly witnessed sexual harassment had higher levels of psychological

distress than those who didn’t witness sexual harassment. Women reported higher psychological

distress than men. However, there was no observed interaction between the two. This supports

both parts of our third hypothesis.

Theoretical Implications

Our findings demonstrate congruence with previous research in both sexual harassment

literature as well as more widespread research on incivlities. Our results support the idea that

witnessing sexual harassment or other events can be detrimental regardless of gender. In terms of

psychological distress, but not school engagement, the gender of the witness also played a role,

with women reporting higher levels of psychological distress which supports previous research
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 23

(Schilpzand et al., 2016). In addition, gender appeared to be a factor of importance in relation to

a witness’ psychological distress after the event (Gruber & Fineran 2015). When examining

effects on school engagement, we saw that directly witnessing sexual harassment had a negative

relationship with school engagement. We did not see differences in school engagement related to

gender. In addition, there was no interaction effect between directly witnessing sexual

harassment and gender. There was no significant relationship observed between those who

indirectly witnessed sexual harassment and their school engagement, and again gender didn’t

appear to be related to differences in school engagement. For our school engagement subscales

of vigor and dedication, directly witnessing sexual harassment was related to decreases in both

vigor and dedication. When examining absorption, we found significant differences in those that

both directly and/or indirectly witnessed sexual harassment and their reported absorption scores.

This is an interesting finding, as it is the only variable that showed significant results for those

that indirectly witnessed sexual harassment. Research into witnessing sexual harassment will

hopefully slowly fill in the present gap in literature on this topic and lead to more clear ways

witnesses are affected in order to develop treatment techniques and drive even further research.

Our research helps provide support for the affective events theory through demonstrating

potential links between witnessing sexual harassment, experiencing a change in affect, which

then caused witnesses to engage in behaviors which didn’t support school engagement as coping

strategies (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996). Specifically, direct witnesses to sexual harassment

appeared to experience lower levels of vigor, dedication, and absorption about their studies than

those who didn’t directly witness sexual harassment. Even those who indirectly witnessed an

event of sexual harassment displayed effects on their overall wellbeing despite not actually

seeing the event. This contributes to the affective events theory, since even those who didn’t see
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 24

the negative event directly take place saw a decrease in their ability to feel fully absorbed in their

work. Lingering effects, even from hearing about the event, could mean that the affective events

theory extends for a longer period of time than initially thought, and might reach a wider amount

of people than just those directly involved. More research is needed to test the validity of this

claim, however. Our inclusion of indirect witnessing helps contribute to the affective events

theory by expanding upon those that are affected by adverse events (Weiss & Cropanzano, 1996).

It can then be posited that in order to cope with what they have experienced, witnesses lost some

of their “drive” to succeed in academic settings.

The Lack of an Interaction Effect

Through all of our statistical analyses, we were unable to observe an interaction effect

between the witness’ gender and their experience of directly or indirectly witnessing sexual

harassment on school engagement or psychological distress. The lack of observed interaction

effect could be due to participants not deeply considering their own gender in relation to the

sexual harassment event, it could be related to more general issues of the study design including

recall bias, or another factor which we didn’t consider in the designing and implementing of the

research study. On a practical level, this finding might be a positive, since when providing

support to witnesses it shows that we should not just focus on one gender of witness but all

genders.

This lack of interaction effect doesn’t support the similarity/attraction theory upon which

we based our hypotheses (Byrne 1971). In order to maintain the anonymity of participants, the

gender of the victim and perpetrator weren’t included as questions within the survey, and

therefore it would be difficult to draw conclusions about how similar or aligned participants were

with the gender of the victim specifically. Thus, we cannot provide evidence to support the claim
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 25

that the gender of the witness matters significantly, and that it might instead relate more towards

the other alignments between the witness and victim or it may have to do with the empathetic or

sympathetic nature of the witness. In addition, there are other gender differences which might

have played a role in responses to our questionnaire which we might not have considered,

including the participant’s openness or the environments which they are regularly exposed to as

well as potential differences in rates of incivilities which occur to women versus rates of

incivilities occurring to men. Future research should aim to focus on empathy or sympathy levels

of participants in relation to victims of sexual harassment and get more information on the sexual

harassment incident that occurred if event based sampling methods are used.

Practical Implications

As stated previously, sexual harassment is an unfortunate part of many people’s lives, and

throughout a person’s lifetime they are more and more likely to come into contact with it directly

or indirectly. Knowing how witnesses are affected by sexual harassment can help provide a more

complete picture of the impacts of sexual harassment and other incivilities on communities as a

whole. In particular, at the undergraduate level, witnessing sexual harassment as the potential to

negatively affect both school performance and feelings of psychological distress. The findings of

this study and others should be examined closely by those working with undergraduate students,

who will soon be entering the workforce or continuing their studies. Professionals who work

directly with sexual harassment and other incivilities, such as Title IX officials, should also

consider the impact events can have on witnesses, in addition to the impacts on the victim and

perpetrator. Monitoring for symptoms of psychological distress in all witnesses as well as

looking out for decreases in school engagement for direct witnesses could help prevent a

“trickling” effect of witnessing sexual harassment. In addition, paying attention to someone’s

Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 26

ability to remain in the present moment and their feelings of absorption in their work can be

helpful indicators of their overall wellbeing in the aftermath of an adverse event. For direct

witnesses, their motivation and desire to continue good performances are other important

indicators.

Existing information about what to do when witnessing sexual harassment stresses the

importance of action on the part of the witness (Nudson, 2019). Intervention and documentation

can aid in the process of reprimanding the perpetrator and providing support for the victim’s

story, as well as empowering other witnesses to stand up in the future (Nudson, 2019). In the

aftermath of witnessing sexual harassment it’s recommended that witnesses seek outside support

both among peers or outside friends, be a source of support for other witnesses and the victim, as

well as consider their own well-being in the context of the situation and looking out for their own

safety (Nudson, 2019). On a broader scale, comprehensive approaches to employee training must

also be taken, including pre-training, training, and post-training segments to ensure the

knowledge sticks (Smith, 2018). Shifting the workplace or academic culture might also be

needed, centering on victim empowerment and bystander empowerment (Smith, 2018).

Limitations and Future Directions

As with all research, the present study is not without its flaws. Firstly, this research is

cross-sectional, meaning long-term or chronological effects couldn’t be documented or analyzed.

Secondly, participants might be affected by recall bias, especially if the events happened some

time ago. Witnesses might have trouble remembering how they felt about their school

engagement or psychological distress if they witnessed sexual harassment some time ago, such

as a couple years ago. Thirdly, our sample size was quite small, and our population

demographics were skewed heavily white and somewhat skewed towards female participants.
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 27

This could be due to a multitude of reasons: from women feeling more comfortable answering

questions on sexual harassment, to the nature of the classes which advertised SONA data

collection being more heavily populated by female students, or men simply not finding the topic

of the research very interesting. Our racial demographics do not provide an accurate

representation of the broader US population, and because of this it might be difficult to

generalize results to people of color, Asian-Americans, Indigenous groups, etc in terms of

predicting their measures of student engagement or psychological distress, or even comparing

the rates that these groups might experience sexual harassment.

Future research would be most beneficial in examining effects of directly witnessing

sexual harassment, as not much was found among those who indirectly witnessed sexual

harassment. Specific aspects of psychological distress could be honed in on, such as focusing in

on symptoms of mental disorders (e.g., susceptibility to depression, anxiety, or even symptoms

of PTSD in the case of severe events). Examining witness’ testimonies and stories in-depth could

provide a more nuanced understanding of how the gender of the witness, victim, and perpetrators

affects their well-being overall and how similarity/attraction theory might play a role. Especially

when looking at undergraduate populations, school engagement is perhaps the best measure to

predict future performance at work. Incorporating witnesses into discussions on incivilities such

as sexual harassment, and providing services to them (such as counseling) could be an important

step in ensuring students do not engage in negative coping behaviors after witnessing an event.

With more focus being paid to this area of incivility, especially in the wake of social

movements like #MeToo, we should especially direct our attention to the potential third parties

involved in the sexual harassment dynamic. Exploring psychological outcomes of witnesses,

specifically paying attention to sexual harassment witnesses in the student context, we can help
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 28

protect against, mitigate, and tailor support to decrease adverse issues related to witnessing

incivilities. Through using tools like surveys we can better capture how these witnesses feel and

what exactly they’ve witnessed or heard about in order to take appropriate steps towards

bettering their psychological outcomes. Through our cross-sectional survey, we were able to

illustrate a relationship between directly and indirectly witnessing sexual harassment and a

student’s school engagement and psychological distress. Further, we were able to find a

connection to the witness’ gender in a differentiation of psychological outcomes. Future research

should take care to examine this connection further to better determine plans of action and care

for witnesses and develop a theoretical framework of sexual harassment as an act of incivility.
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 29

References

Acquadro Maran, D., Varetto, A., & Civilotti, C. (2022). Sexual harassment in the workplace:

Consequences and perceived self-efficacy in women and men witnesses and

non-witnesses. Behavioral Sciences, 12(9), 326.

Alrashidi, O., Phan, H. P., & Ngu, B. H. (2016). Academic Engagement: An overview of its

definitions, dimensions, and major conceptualisations. International Education Studies,

9(12), 41-52.

American Association of University Women. (2001). Hostile Hallways: Bullying, teasing, and

sexual harassment in school. Washington, DC: American Association of University

Women Educational Foundation.

Andersson, L. M., & Pearson, C. M. (1999). Tit for tat? The spiraling effect of incivility in the

workplace. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 452–471.

Bingham, S. G., & Battey, K. M. (2005). Communication of social support to sexual harassment

victims: Professors’ responses to a student’s narrative of unwanted sexual attention.

Communication Studies, 56(2), 131-155.

Collinsworth, L. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (2009). In harm's way: factors related to

psychological distress following sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

33(4), 475-490.

Communications, D. (n.d.). Examples of Sexual Harassment. Retrieved January 18, 2023, from

https://www.dodea.edu/sexualharassment/examples-of-sexual-harassment.cfm

Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual

harassment in the military: the sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ—DoD). Military

Psychology, 11(3), 243-263.

Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 30

Gruber, J., & Fineran, S. (2016). Sexual harassment, bullying, and school outcomes for high

school girls and boys. Violence Against Women, 22(1), 112–133.

Li, J., & Craig, W. M. (2020). Adolescent Sexual Harassment, Shame, and Depression: Do

experiences of witnessing harassment Matter? The Journal of Early Adolescence, 40(5),

712–737.

Maslach, C., Jackson, S. E., & Leiter, M. (1996). Maslach Burnout Inventory: Test manual (3rd

ed.). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists Press.

Miner, K. N., & Eischeid, A. (2012). Observing incivility toward coworkers and negative

emotions: Do gender of the target and observer matter?. Sex Roles, 66, 492-505.

Mostert, K., Pienaar, J., Gauche, C., & Jackson, L. T. B. (2007). Burnout and engagement in

university students: A psychometric analysis of the MBI-SS and UWES-S. South African

Journal of Higher Education, 21(1), 147-162.

Nielsen, M. B., & Einarsen, S. (2012). Prospective relationships between workplace sexual

harassment and psychological distress. Occupational Medicine, 62(3), 226-228.

Nudson, R. (2019, August 30). What to Do When You Witness Sexual Harassment at Work. GEN.

https://gen.medium.com/what-to-do-when-you-witness-sexual-harassment-at-work-869df

5c0e1e3

O’Donohue, W., Downs, K., & Yeater, E. A. (1998). Sexual harassment: A review of the

literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3(2), 111-128.

Rivers, I., Poteat, V. P., Noret, N., & Ashurst, N. (2009). Observing bullying at school: The

mental health implications of witness status. School Psychology Quarterly, 24(4),

211-223.
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 31

Schaufeli, W. B., Martínez, I. M., Pinto, A. M., Salanova, M., & Bakker, A. B. (2002). Burnout

and engagement in university students: A cross-national study. Journal of Cross-Cultural

Psychology, 33(5), 464–481.

Schilpzand, P., De Pater, I. E., & Erez, A. (2016). Workplace incivility: A review of the literature

and agenda for future research. Journal of Organizational behavior, 37, S57-S88.

Smith, B. L. (2018, February 1). What it really takes to stop sexual harassment. Monitor on

Psychology, 49(2). https://www.apa.org/monitor/2018/02/sexual-harassment

Upadyaya, K., & Salmela-Aro, K. (2013). Development of school engagement in association

with academic success and well-being in varying social contexts. European psychologist,

18(2), 136-147.

Wang, M.-T., Fredricks, J., Ye, F., Hofkens, T., & Linn, J. S. (2017). Conceptualization and

Assessment of Adolescents’ Engagement and Disengagement in School. European

Journal of Psychological Assessment, 35(4), 592–606.

Williams, T., Connolly, J., Pepler, D., & Craig, W. (2005). Peer victimization, social support, and

psychosocial adjustment of sexual minority adolescents. Journal of Youth and

Adolescence, 34, 471-482.

Wolff, J. M., Rospenda, K. M., & Colaneri, A. S. (2017). Sexual harassment, psychological

distress, and problematic drinking behavior among college students: An examination of

reciprocal causal relations. The Journal of Sex Research, 54(3), 362-373.

Ybarra, M. L., Mitchell, K. J., Palmer, N. A., & Reisner, S. L. (2015). Online social support as a

buffer against online and offline peer and sexual victimization among US LGBT and

non-LGBT youth. Child Abuse & Neglect, 39, 123-136.

Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 32

Zimet, G. D., Dahlem, N. W., Zimet, S. G., & Farley, G. K. (1988). The multidimensional scale

of perceived social support. Journal of personality assessment, 52(1), 30-41.

 Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 33

Tables and Figures

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Two-Way ANOVAS on Direct Witnessing and UWES-S

Variables Man Woman

ANOVA
No Yes No Yes

M SD SD SD M SD M SD Effect F ratio df 𝜂2

UWES-S 3.07 1.30 2.36 1.15 2.96 1.10 2.51 0.88

Direct D 7.41* 1, 156 0.05

Gender G 0.005 1, 156 0.00

Interaction DxG 0.36 1, 156 0.00

Vigor 2.78 1.46 2.07 1.46 2.45 1.20 1.99 0.93

Direct D 6.20* 1, 156 0.04

Gender G 1.03 1, 156 0.01

Interaction DxG 0.28 1, 156 0.00

Dedication 3.86 1.26 3.13 1.55 3.89 1.22 3.57 1.14

Direct D 4.62* 1, 156 0.03

Gender G 0.93 1, 156 0.00

Interaction DxG 0.75 1, 156 0.00

Absorption 2.44 1.54 1.77 1.32 2.43 1.40 1.81 1.122

Direct D 5.91* 1, 156 0.04

Gender G 0.002 1, 156 0.00

DxG 0.01 1, 156 0.00

Interaction

Note. N = 160. ANOVA = analysis of variance; UWES-S = Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for
Students; D = direct witnessing; G = gender

*p < 0.05.
 Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 34

Table 2

Means, Standard Deviations, and Two-Way ANOVAS on Indirectly Witnessing UWES-S

Variables Man Woman

ANOVA
No Yes No Yes

M SD SD SD M SD M SD Effect F ratio df 𝜂2

UWES-S 3.06 1.47 2.71 1.07 2.91 1.03 2.66 1.00

Indirect I 2.45 1, 156 0.01

Gender G 0.23 1, 156 0.00

Interaction IxG 0.07 1, 156 0.00

Vigor 2.77 1.57 2.41 1.28 2.32 1.16 2.19 1.07

Indirect I 1.21 1, 156 0.00

Gender G 2.31 1, 156 0.01

Interaction IxG 0.26 1, 156 0.00

Dedication 3.73 1.56 3.60 1.20 3.81 1.17 3.70 1.20

Indirect I 0.24 1, 156 0.00

Gender G 0.15 1, 156 0.00

Interaction IxG 0.00 1, 156 0.00

Absorption 2.58 1.67 1.96 1.29 2.51 1.33 1.97 1.26

Indirect I 5.36* 1, 156 0.03

Gender G 0.01 1, 156 0.00

Interaction IxG 0.02 1, 156 0.00

Note. N = 160. ANOVA = analysis of variance; UWES-S = Utrecht Work Engagement Scale for
Students; I = indirect witnessing; G = gender

*p < 0.05.
 Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 35

Table 3

Means, Standard Deviations, and Two-Way ANOVAS on Directly and Indirectly Witnessing
Psychological Distress

Variables Man Woman

ANOVA
No Yes No Yes

M SD SD SD M SD M SD Effect F ratio df 𝜂2

K10 0.57 0.63 1.46 .94 1.06 0.74 1.73 0.78

Direct D 26.25* 1, 156 0.14

Gender G 6.16* 1, 156 0.03

DxG 0.46 1, 156 0.00

Interaction

K10 0.81 0.74 0.84 0.90 1.36 0.71 1.41 0.87

Indirect I 0.06 1, 156 0.00

Gender G 12.92* 1, 156 0.08

Interaction IxG 0.01 1, 156 0.00

Note. N = 160. ANOVA = analysis of variance; K10 = Kessler Psychological Distress Scale; D =
direct witnessing; I = indirect witnessing; G = gender

*p < 0.05.
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 36

Figure 1

Directly Witnessing Sexual Harassment and Psychological Distress

Note. Average psychological distress scores, separated by gender and by “witnessing” status

(yes/no) are shown. Average scores were calculated using a composite score of Kessler’s

Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Higher scores indicate more psychological distress.
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 37

Figure 2

Indirectly Witnessing Sexual Harassment and Psychological Distress

Note. Average psychological distress scores, separated by gender and by “indirectly witnessing”

status (yes/no) are shown. Average scores were calculated using a composite score of Kessler’s

Psychological Distress Scale (K10). Higher scores indicate more psychological distress.
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 38

Figure 3

Directly Witnessing Sexual Harassment and School Engagement

Note. Average school engagement scores, separated by gender and by “witnessing” status

(yes/no) are shown. Average scores were calculated using a composite score of the Utrecht Work

Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S). Higher scores indicate higher school engagement.
Witnessing Sexual Harassment on School Engagement 39

Figure 4

Indirectly Witnessing Sexual Harassment and School Engagement

Note. Average school engagement scores, separated by gender and by “ indirect witnessing”

status (yes/no) are shown. Average scores were calculated using a composite score of the Utrecht

Work Engagement Scale for Students (UWES-S). Higher scores indicate higher school

engagement.