Religious harassment in the workplace: An examination of observer intervention

Abstract

Religious harassment claims in the United States have risen sharply over the past decade. However, victims of religious harassment may not always report harassment, and true rates may be higher. Hence, actions taken by third parties present (observers) are important in combating harassment in the workplace. The purpose of this paper is to extend a previous model of observer intervention and related research by testing it empirically in the context of religious harassment and identify factors that influence observers' decision to intervene (intervention), when they intervene (level of immediacy), and how much they intervene (level of involvement). Across two studies, we find evidence that verbal harassment, ambiguity of intent, relationship to target/harasser, recurrence belief, religious commitment, pro-social orientation, and the interactive effect of shared religion and religious commitment predict intervention. Furthermore, individuals show higher levels of involvement and immediacy in intervention when costs are low and emotional reactions are high. Implications of these findings for engaging observers in combatting harassment are discussed.This girl I worked with was Jewish. One day we were all at lunch and we split the bill. The girl paid a dollar less than someone else and the kid across from me turned to her and said, "Don't Jew me out of that dollar." She looked extremely hurt by this incident.We have an Arab cook in the --------Center. He is a male Muslim and everyone cracks jokes behind his back. They say things like "If you don't like his food he will put a Jihad on you" and "I'm scared to eat his food cause there is probably a lot of curry and anthrax in everything."

It’s Not Personal: A Review and Theoretical Integration of Research on Vicarious Workplace Mistreatment

“…Bowes-Sperry and O’Leary-Kelly (2005) adapted and expanded on Latané and Darley’s (1970) model to predict that intervention is also contingent upon (a) the ambiguity and severity of vicarious mistreatment, (b) other observers’ reactions to vicarious mistreatment, (c) the relationship between the victim and the perpetrator, (d) the third party’s organizational role, and (e) whether the third party and victim share a social identity. A number of the components of this model have been empirically upheld; bystanders have been found to be most likely to take action when the mistreatment event was unambiguous (Espinoza & Cunningham, 2010; Ghumman, Ryan, & Park, 2016; Ryan & Wessel, 2012), victim consequences were higher rather than lower in severity (Bowes-Sperry & Powell, 1999; Hellemans, Dal Cason, & Casini, 2017), the third party believed other bystanders would view the behavior as inappropriate (Bowes-Sperry & Powell, 1999), there was a professional rather than personal relationship between the victim and the perpetrator (Chui & Dietz, 2014), and the witness occupied a role with more responsibility to report mistreatment (Holland et al, 2016). Though studies have not supported shared social identity as a predictor of intervening (Bowes-Sperry & Powell, 1999; Ghumman et al, 2016), third parties were found to be more likely to intervene when they had a closer relationship with the victim (Coyne, Gopaul, Campbell, Pankász, Garland, & Cousans, in press; Ghumman et al, 2016; Ryan & Wessel, 2012), suggesting that interconnectedness between the victim and the third party does influence bystander intervention.…”

Coffee and controversy: How applied psychology can revitalize sexual harassment and racial discrimination training

“…Employees may be unaware of their tendencies to treat persons from minority communities unfairly, or that their attitudes toward people from distinct demographic backgrounds could be negative. Organizational decision-makers might harbor unconscious biases regarding individuals from identifiable subgroups or minority communities and thus potentially act negatively toward these individuals (e.g., Ghumman et al, 2016;Hebl et al, 2002; State of New South Wales, Department of Premier and Cabinet, Behavioral Insights Unit, 2016). Unconscious biases among organizational decision-makers might limit promotion or participation of minority individuals in leadership roles.…”

Religious identity in the workplace: A systematic review, research agenda, and practical implications

“…Identity is core to diversity in the workplace reflecting fundamental social differences among people. Workplace diversity entails more than visible or surface‐level diversity (e.g., age or ethnicity), but also the deep‐level diversity associated with sexual orientation, class, or, indeed, religion (e.g., Ghumman, Ryan, & Park, ; Harris & Yancey, ). Although some religious identities can be invisible to coworkers, others have visible signifiers, such as the wearing of a hijab, kippah, or turban by some Muslim women, Jewish men, and Sikh men, respectively.…”

“…Identity is core to diversity in the workplace reflecting fundamental social differences among people. Workplace diversity entails more than visible or surface-level diversity (e.g., age or ethnicity), but also the deep-level diversity associated with sexual orientation, class, or, indeed, religion (e.g., Ghumman, Ryan, & Park, 2016;Harris & Yancey, 2017).…”

“…For example, Harris and Yancey (2017) note that conservative Christian social workers can experience valuedissonance between social work principles of self-determination and their own beliefs when they work with specific client groups such as Interindividual conflict is the subject of several studies on religious identity at work. Employees with strong religious identities experience conflict with their colleagues and clients or customers when workplace requirements constrain an identity's expression or when employees believe their own religious identity is not respected (Flanigan, 2009;Gebert et al, 2014;Ghumman et al, 2016;Lucchetti et al, 2016). The importance of interindividual dynamics accords with Reddy and Gleibs' (2019) observation that identity negotiation is enacted in relation to a specific audience (e.g., other organizational/occupational members or clients/customers) and that any tension or synergy need not be solely within a person, but can exist among individuals as well (W. B.…”