The experiences of bystanders of workplace ethnic harassment

The Experiences of Bystanders ofWorkplace Ethnic Harassment

K. S. Douglas Low1

Department of Educational PsychologyUniversity of Illinois at

Urbana–Champaign

Phanikiran RadhakrishnanUniversity of Toronto at Scarborough

Scarborough, Ontario, Canada

Kimberly T. SchneiderIllinois State University

James RoundsDepartment of Educational Psychology

University of Illinois atUrbana–Champaign

The present research examined the experiences of individuals who witnessed or knewabout ethnic harassment of their coworkers. Through 3 studies, we found thatknowledge of other people’s harassment was differentiated from personal experi-ences as a target and was associated with deleterious occupational, health-related,and psychological consequences beyond those accounted for by direct harassmentand affective disposition. Ethnicity and gender did not moderate these relationships.Knowledge of others’ ethnic harassment can therefore be construed as bystanderharassment. Results also indicated that bystander and direct harassment were rela-tively common occurrences. Both harassment types contributed to how ethnic con-flict is experienced. The consequences of ethnic harassment are not restricted toethnic minority employees. Rather, everyone is at risk from such behaviors.

Harassing and abusive behaviors at the workplace have deterimentaleffects on employees and organizations (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin,Gelfand, & Magley, 1997; LeBlanc & Kelloway, 2002). With the increasingdiversity of the North American workforce, harassment on the basis of raceand ethnicity has become a focal workplace issue. Studies have explicated thenature of ethnic harassment.2 They have included verbal and written com-ments, offensive symbols, ethnic jokes and slurs, as well as physical abuse(Harrick & Sullivan, 1995), and have been found to be associated with

1Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to K. S. Douglas Low, Depart-ment of Educational Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana–Champaign, 210 EducationBuilding, MC 708, 1310 South Sixth Street, Champaign, IL 61820. E-mail: [email protected]

2We use the term ethnic, rather than race, given the large number of Hispanic respondents inall 3 studies. Although Studies 2 and 3 included non-Hispanic racial minorities, we chose tocontinue using the term ethnic harassment to maintain terminological consistency. Both race andethnicity were included in the phrasing of items for the Bystander Ethnic Harassment Experi-ences (BEHE) and the Ethnic Harassment Experiences (EHE) measures.

2261

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2007, 37, 10, pp. 2261–2297.© 2007 Copyright the AuthorsJournal compilation © 2007 Blackwell Publishing, Inc.

mailto:[email protected]

negative outcomes (Schneider, Hitlan, & Radhakrishnan, 2000). However,little is known about the experiences of other individuals who share the sameworkplace. There is growing evidence (Glomb et al., 1997; Miner-Rubino &Cortina, 2004) that instances of harassment and their negative consequencesextend beyond individual targets to include non-targets, workgroups, andentire organizations.

The present study examines individuals’ knowledge of ethnic harasssmentin their work environments and the impact this knowledge might have on theperson. Specifically, we focus on differentiating ethnic harassment of targets(direct harassment) from the experiences of employees who are nontargets,but who are knowledgeable about incidents of harassment, in the context oftheir effects on occupational, psychological, and health-related outcomes. Itis expected that knowledge of coworkers being harassed as a result of eth-nicity will be a source of stress and will affect the individual adversely. Assuch, we label these experiences of nontargets (i.e., bystanders) who witnessor come to know about the ethnic derogation of other employees as bystanderethnic harassment.

Conceptualization of Bystander Ethnic Harassment

The present conceptualization of bystander ethnic harassment includesfirsthand eyewitness experiences and secondhand knowledge transmittedfrom others at the workplace. Several lines of research support using bothfirsthand and secondhand knowledge. First, it is difficult to disentangleobservations from secondhand knowledge using self-report measures.Hekkanen and McEvoy (2002) showed a preponderance of source misattri-bution errors in memory tasks. Often, individuals fail in distinguishing theirpersonal observations from the suggestions of others, especially when theseexperiential items are schema-consistent (as in the current context). Further-more, studies (for a meta-analytic review, see Figley, 1995) have demon-strated that healthcare workers, who themselves did not have firsthandencounters with the traumatic events experienced by their patients, have anincreased incidence of trauma-related stress symptoms. This indicates thatlistening to explicit accounts of traumatic events or having explicit knowl-edge of such events may have a cumulative psychological impact, even if theindividual did not observe the trauma in person.

Researchers have examined the effects of bystander stress across anumber of domains and have consistently demonstrated that the distressassociated with an adverse incident extends beyond the focal victim to thosearound the person. Studies in the area of trauma indicate that bearing witnessto an event or even having gained secondhand knowledge of an event can

2262 LOW ET AL.

cause prolonged anxiety to varying degrees. Numerous studies on the after-math of widely broadcast catastrophes (e.g., the Challenger explosion, theOklahoma City bombing, the 9/11 terrorist attacks) have found knowledge ofthese events to be related to trauma-related stress symptoms in adults andchildren who were far away from the scene, with stress reactions persistingfor as long as 2 years (Pfefferbaum et al., 2000; Schuster et al., 2002; Terret al., 1999).

Similarly, inner-city youths who witnessed acts of violence frequentlysuffered negative psychological consequences, even in cases with reducedvividness (Berton & Stabb, 1996). Janson and Hazler (2004), in a more specificcontext, found no differences in psychological distress and in physiologicalreactivity between college students’ recollections of being a witness and theirsubsequent recollections of being a direct target of abusive experiences.

Organizational research has begun addressing the experiences of nontar-gets. Focusing primarily on workplace sexual harassment, these studies(Glomb et al., 1997; Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004) have found nontargets(including men) who had knowledge of the harassment of other coworkers toreport negative outcomes that mirrored individuals with personal experiencesof sexual harassment. Results from experimental studies have suggested thatthe same would be true for employees with knowledge of others around themwho had been ethnically harassed. For example, visual images depictingconflict between actors of different ethnicity (e.g., a White man using slursand making derogatory, ethnicity-based comments toward two Black men)produced significant increases in electrodermal activity, blood pressure, andheart rates of participants (for a review, see Harrell, Hall, & Taliaferro,2003), which are physiological reactions that are congruent with those ofdirect targets (Krieger & Sidney, 1996). Furthermore, invoked mentalimagery of ethnic harassment that did not necessary reflect participants’personal experiences was by itself sufficient to increase tension in musclesconnected to negative emotional arousal and stress reactions (Jones, Harrell,Morris-Prather, Thomas, & Omowale, 1996). Overall, these studies suggestthat employees who observe or perceive harassment directed at others thatresults from ethnic factors may endure consequences similar to those whohave been direct targets of hostility.

We expect a person’s knowledge of the ethnic harassment of coworkers toprecipitate a number of negative outcomes. Witnesses of hostile behaviordirected at others often report the belief that they will themselves be subjectto similar harm. These individuals typically feel frustrated over their inabilityto intervene or become angry at the organization for not controlling theperpetrators (Neuman & Baron, 1998; Rogers & Kelloway, 1997). Theseobservations are in line with Barling’s (1996) hypothesis that vicarious expo-sure to workplace aggression and violence will lead to affective consequences,

BYSTANDER ETHNIC HARASSMENT 2263

such as fear of the perpetrator and empathy for the victim. Thus, knowledgeof the wrongful treatment of others can be perceived as a workplace stressor.

The Present Study

The present study argues that being a witness to or coming to know aboutincidents of ethnic harassment is in and of itself a stressful event and, in manyways, constitutes a diffusion of the harassing behavior onto other individualsoccupying the same environment. The nontarget experiences of ethnicharassment in the present study are assessed through the Bystander EthnicHarassment Experiences (BEHE) measure.

Bystander ethnic harassment constitutes witnessing or knowing about inci-dents of harassment, as well as an implicit assessment of individuals’ reac-tions to this knowledge. The mere perception of the ethnic harassment ofanother person does not guarantee a negative response, because neither theperson who is the target nor the observer may necessarily perceive it asharassment. Therefore, an assessment of bystander harassment must extendbeyond the nature of the harassing behavior and must include the subjectivenature of the individual’s response.

Items for the BEHE measure were developed from a content analysis ofthe comments of working students who described situations in which theywitnessed or came to know of conflict at work (Schneider, 1997), fromanalyzing previous research on co-victimization and ambient harassment(Glomb et al., 1997; Gutierres, Saenz, & Green, 1994), and from theoreticalconceptualizations of ethnic experiences at the workplace (Cervantes, 1992;Schneider et al., 2000). Items used in the present study to assess the phenom-enon were written to represent the common reactions of helplessness, anger,and avoidance that are connected with the knowledge of such behaviors. Themeasure assesses respondents’ (a) knowledge of the racial/ethnic harassmentof peers and coworkers (e.g., “You watched or heard about someone whowas the target of racist/ethnically insulting comments”); and (b) their actionsthat accompanied this knowledge (e.g., “You supported someone who talkedto you about being the target of racial/ethnic harassment”). There is evidencethat coworkers are frequently aware of ethnicity-based hostilities perpetu-ated against their colleagues (Jeanquart-Barone & Sekaran, 1996; VanYperen & Snijders, 2000). Taken with Schneider et al.’s finding that directharassment was experienced by 40% to 67% of their sample participants, wepropose the following hypothesis:

Hypothesis 1. The prevalence of individuals’ knowledge of theethnic harassment of their coworkers will be comparable to thatof direct harassment.

2264 LOW ET AL.

Research and theory in perspective taking (Aron, Aron, Tudor, & Nelson,1991; Davis, Conklin, Smith, & Luce, 1996) suggest that observers createcognitive representations of others that overlap with the observers’ ownself-representations, especially for individuals who share close relationships,in effect assimilating others’ causal attributions of behaviors into one’s own.Furthermore, studies (e.g., Batson, Early, & Salvarani, 1997) have shownthat responses to another person’s distress consist of an other-oriented emo-tional response (e.g., sympathy, compassion) that is congruent with the per-ceived plight, as well as a self-oriented response that reflects feelings ofdistress and discomfort evoked by witnessing the plight of the other.

We expect that witnessing harassing behaviors, having to listen to one’scoworkers’ explicit accounts of these incidents, or even having knowledge ofthese behaviors have equally important contributions as experiences of directharassment in the perception of ethnic conflict in one’s environment. Usingmultigroup confirmatory factor analyses, Schneider et al. (2000) demon-strated the items used to measure direct ethnic harassment to be factoriallyinvariant across Whites and non-White Hispanics. We expect bystanderethnic harassment and its associations with verbal harassment and exclusionin the perception of ethnic conflict to be invariant across ethnic groups. Morespecifically, we propose the following:

Hypothesis 2a. Bystander ethnic harassment, direct verbalharassment, and exclusion will be equal contributors to andintegral aspects of individuals’ overall experiences with ethnicconflict.

Hypothesis 2b. Individuals’ experiences with ethnic conflict intheir environment will be factorially invariant across ethnicgroups.

If knowledge of ethnic harassment of others is stressful and distressing inand of itself, we expect nontarget individuals without direct experiences to benegatively affected according to how much they know about the ethnicharassment of their coworkers. Based on previous empirical studies on thephysiological and psychological effects of perceived racism, Clark, Ander-son, Clark, and Williams (1999) proposed a contextual model that empha-sized the relationship between environmental stimuli and their additiveimpact on stress responses. For bystander experiences to be useful in expand-ing our understanding of ethnic harassment, they should demonstrate incre-mental validity over direct harassment in predicting various outcomes. Asan additional environmental stressor, we expect the knowledge of one’scoworkers being ethnically harassed to have an additive impact on the


negative well-being consequences resulting from being a target. We postulatethe following:

Hypothesis 3a. As individuals observe or learn aboutmore ethnicity-based harassment perpetuated against theircoworkers, they will experience less occupational, psycho-logical, and health-related outcomes.

Hypothesis 3b. The deleterious effects of being exposed to theethnic harassment of others will be independent of individuals’experiences with direct harassment. Nontargets who have notexperienced being a target but who are exposed to the ethnicharassment of others will also experience deleterious well-beingconsequences.

Hypothesis 3c. Individuals who experience direct ethnic harass-ment and who know about others’ experiences with ethnicharassment will have the poorest outcomes.

Based on these hypotheses, three studies were conducted. Study 1 isintended to establish bystander ethnic harassment as a separate phenomenonfrom direct ethnic harassment (cf. Schneider et al., 2000) that contributesjointly to individuals’ perceptions of ethnic conflict in their environment.Study 2 provides additional construct validity for bystander ethnic harass-ment by replicating the relationships between bystander and direct ethnicharassment and by demonstrating the incremental validity of bystanderethnic harassment in accounting for negative outcomes. Finally, Study 3compares the consequences of exposure to bystander ethnic harassmentbetween respondents who do not report being the targets of direct harass-ment and those who do.

Study 1

To be a valid description of individuals’ experiences with ethnic harass-ment, knowledge of someone else’s encounters with harassment must bedistinguishable from one’s personal experiences as a target. Study 1 focuseson issues related to the validity of bystander ethnic harassment, first byassessing its generalizability across populations.

A number of researchers (e.g., Judd, Park, Ryan, Brauer, & Kraus, 1995;Okazaki & Sue, 1995) have warned of overgeneralizing results from univer-sity students to other populations. This is especially relevant to issues ofracial/ethnic discrimination and harassment, since potential moderators (e.g.,

2266 LOW ET AL.

acculturation, language proficiency) are likely to differ between students andnonstudents.

The purpose of Study 1 is to establish bystander ethnic harassment as aunique aspect of individuals’ experiences with ethnic harassment within acommunity working sample. To this end, we conducted an exploratory factoranalysis on the items measuring bystander ethnic harassment and a series ofconfirmatory factor analyses examining the relationship between bystanderethnic harassment and the two facets of direct ethnic harassment identified inSchneider et al.’s (2000) study.

The respondents of Study 1 consist of working adults whose responseswere solicited as they were waiting in an airport or at a bus stop in a city insouthwestern United States. The sample was diverse in terms of its ethniccomposition, vocation, and organizational status. An advantage of the sam-pling method is that respondents were unlikely to be influenced by fear ofrepercussion, as responses were anonymously solicited outside their work-place environments.

Method

Participants

Respondents were 276 individuals (93 female, 114 male, 69 gender notindicated) who were waiting in an airport (n = 246) or at the airport bus stop(n = 30) in a city in the Southwest. The respondents were non-HispanicWhites (n = 109; 39.5%), Hispanics (n = 95; 34.4%), African Americans(n = 24; 8.7%), Native Americans and East Asians (n = 31; 11.2%), and others(n = 17, race not indicated; 6.2%). Respondents’ ages ranged from 17 to 74years (M = 38.6 years, SD = 13.1), and 88% of the respondents worked fulltime. The range of employment varied widely across remuneration and skills(e.g., sales, engineer, manager, research, janitor, clerk, technician).

Measures and Procedure

Respondents were approached by one of eight trained research assistantsand were asked to complete a 20-min workplace environment survey, assess-ing various workplace variables. Experimenters were trained to avoid refer-ences to harassment or discrimination when administering the survey, so as tominimize demand characteristics. Respondents were assured anonymity andconfidentiality of their responses. They were not required to indicate theirnames, and research assistants did not inspect the surveys after collection. No


significant effects involving experimenter, largest F(7, 216) = 1.64, p > .12; orlocation, largest t(209) = -1.19, p > .20, emerged for responses on the mea-sures of bystander ethnic harassment or target ethnic harassment.

Bystander ethnic harassment. The Bystander Ethnic Harassment Experi-ences (BEHE) measure contains seven items that assess respondents’ knowl-edge of the racial/ethnic harassment of peers and coworkers and their actionsthat accompanied this knowledge (see Table 1 for all items). The responsescale of the BEHE was structured after the Ethnic Harassment Experiencesscale (Schneider et al., 2000), such that potentially harassing incidents werelisted and respondents indicated on a 5-point scale ranging from 1 (never) to5 (very often) how often they had experienced each incident at their organi-zation during the last 24 months. The measure evidenced reasonable internalconsistency, with alphas of .86, .87, and .84 for Studies 1, 2, and 3,respectively.

Table 1

Factor Loadings for Bystander Ethnic Harassment Experiences Using DirectOblimin (Oblique) Rotation

Item Factor 1 Factor 2

1. You were angry at your company’s administrationfor not taking stronger actions against someonewho racially/ethnically harasses others.

.87 .17

2. You were aware of the racial/ethnic harassment ofsomeone at your company.

.80 -.34

3. You watched or heard about someone who wasracially/ethnically harassed but you were unable todo anything about it.

.71 -.25

4. You supported someone who talked to you aboutbeing the target of racial/ethnic harassment.

.67 .12

5. You watched or heard about someone who wasthe target of racist/ethnically insulting comments.

.58 .00

6. You avoided someone who has a reputation forracially/ethnically harassing others at your company.

.74 .16

7. You had to choose a side of one colleague overanother when problems arose between the two dueto racial/ethnic harassment.

.63 .23

Note. Loadings of items related to the factor appear in boldface.

2268 LOW ET AL.

Direct ethnic harassment. We measured the frequency of harassmentexperienced directly by the respondents with the Ethnic Harassment Experi-ences scale (EHE; Schneider et al., 2000). The EHE consists of seven itemsdesigned to measure the frequency of verbal ethnic harassment (e.g.,“Someone made racist comments to you”) and exclusion behaviors (e.g.,“Someone refused to give you work-related information because of yourrace/ethnicity”) targeted at respondents within the previous 24 months. Theverbal harassment subscale consists of four items, while the exclusion sub-scale consists of three items. As demonstrated in Schneider et al.’s study, bothexploratory and confirmatory factor analyses supported the construct valid-ity of the two subscales for non-Hispanic White and Hispanic samples. In thepresent study, the alphas for the EHE for Studies 1, 2, and 3 were .90, .83, and.82, respectively.

Results

Exploratory Factor Analysis

To investigate the dimensionality of bystander ethnic harassment, weperformed an exploratory factor analysis (EFA) using principal axis factor-ing on the seven items of the BEHE. Four criteria were employed to evaluatethe extracted factors. First, the extracted factors had to have a minimum ofthree items with loadings greater than .40 because loadings of a smallermagnitude would likely reflect error variance, and a three-item minimum isnecessary to avoid an underidentified model when cross-validating usingconfirmatory methods. Second, there had to be minimal cross-loadings ofitems among the extracted factors because this would reduce the ability tomake meaningful comparisons between factors that share items. Third, thescree plot had to identify the point at which the emergent factors account forconsiderably less variance. Finally, the extracted factors had to be theoreti-cally meaningful.

EFA with direct oblimin rotation of items in the BEHE yields one inter-pretable factor (see Table 1). Item loadings on the first factor were uniformlyhigh, with low or zero cross-loadings on the second factor. The first factoraccounted for 56.4% of total variance, while the second factor accounted for10.6% of total variance. Analysis of the scree plot indicates a considerabledropoff in variance accounted for after the first emergent factor. Takentogether with the low loadings of all items on the second factor and its lackof meaningful interpretability, the second factor can be attributed to residualerror variance. As such, the BEHE measure can be adequately described byone latent factor.


Confirmatory Factor Analysis

Drawing from our conceptualization of bystander harassment as an inte-gral aspect of individuals’ experiences with ethnic harassment, a single over-arching factor of overall ethnic harassment experiences was proposed as aglobal representation of these experiences. We tested three competing modelsspecifying relations to EHE and BEHE items. Models were analyzed usingmaximum likelihood with EQS 6.1 for Windows (Bentler & Wu, 2002).Although most respondents reported experiencing some form of ethnicharassment, frequency data of self-reported ethnicity-based negative experi-ences tended to be positively skewed (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996; Schneideret al., 2000). A test of normality assumptions indicates that the data were notmultivariate normal (Mardia’s coefficient = 151.61; below 1.96 indicatesacceptable multivariate kurtosis; Byrne, 2001). Thus, the Satorra–Bentlerscaled chi square (sb-c2; Satorra & Bentler, 1994) and robust standard errorswere used in model evaluation. We adopted this method since it is the mostwidely studied and generally accepted best alternative test statistic for modelevaluation under non-normality.

The first model tested whether the three first-order factors were indepen-dent by constraining factor correlations to be zero. The second model speci-fied one general factor in which all verbal harassment, exclusion, andbystander harassment items were specified to load onto a single first-orderfactor. It is the most reduced model and represented the total score across theBEHE and EHE scales. The third model was a second-order factor model inwhich all three factors were specified to load onto the higher-order OverallEthnic Harassment Experiences factor. The second-order factor model wasproposed in place of the typical three correlated first-order factors modelbecause the second-order factor model was mathematically equivalent to thefirst-order correlated factor model (Bollen, 1989). However, a second-orderfactor model, if it is tenable, is preferable to a first-order correlated factormodel because the second-order factor model more explicitly considers thestructural nature of the constructs. Moreover, a second-order factor mayaccount for correlated errors that are prevalent in first-order CFAs (Gerbing& Anderson, 1984).

Five indexes based on Satorra–Bentler adjustments were used to assessgoodness of fit of the models: comparative fit index (CFI), incremental fitindex (IFI), non-normed fit index (NNFI), McDonald’s noncentrality index(Mc), and root mean square error of approximation (RMSEA). We adoptedcutoff values suggested by Hu and Bentler (1999) for designating good fit(i.e., CFI, IFI, and NNFI > .95; Mc > .90; RMSEA < .06).

Fit for the one general factor model, sb-c2(76, N = 276) = 178.98, ns(CFI = .83; IFI = .83; NNFI = .79; Mc = .76; RMSEA = .085), and the three

2270 LOW ET AL.

uncorrelated factors model, sb-c2(73, N = 276) = 236.54, ns (CFI = .73;IFI = .73; NNFI = .66; Mc = .65; RMSEA = .108) were poor. On the otherhand, the second-order model demonstrated good fit, sb-c2(70,N = 276) = 99.68, p < .05 (CFI = .95; IFI = .95; NNFI = .94; Mc = .93;RMSEA = .047).

The item/factor loadings and uniqueness of the second-order model areshown in Figure 1. Using the procedure outlined by Fornell and Larcker(1981), we computed the variance extracted estimates—that is, rvc(h)—of thethree first-order factors. The rvc(h) indexes, which denote proportion of vari-ance in the items explained by each underlying factor, were .52, .61, and .69for bystander harassment, verbal harassment, and exclusion, respectively—above the .50 recommended cutoff criterion—indicating that the items wereadequate indicators of their corresponding construct and suggesting conver-gent validity.

The variance accounted for by each first-order factor—that is, rvc(h)—exceeded its individual shared variance (g2

bystander–verbal = .50, g2bystander–

exclusion = .43, g2verbal–exclusion = .49), supporting the discriminant validity of each

harassment factor. Correlations among the three factors were high (seeTable 2), indicating substantial overlap in respondents’ experiences with thethree types of ethnic harassment. Further evidence for discriminant validity(Andersen & Gerbing, 1988) was demonstrated by the finding that noneof the 95% confidence intervals (CIs) around each correlation betweenthe first-order factors subsumed unity (CIbystander–verbal = .63 to .84;CIbystander–exclusion = .77 to .92; CIverbal–exclusion = .72 to .91). Finally, we calculated

Overall ethnic harassment

experiences

VH3 BH5 BH6 BH7 VH1 BH4 VH2 VH4 E1 E2 E3 BH1 BH2 BH3

.85/.83 .86/.77 .88/.80

Exclusion Bystander harassment

Verbal harassment .52/.56

.85/.79

.26/.54 .48/.59

.81/.72 .78/.82 .69/.70 .78/.74 .82/.77 .79/.70 .82/.72 .88/.75 .66/.70 .63/.69 .67/.73 .75/.69 .54/.69

.52/.57 .59/.71 .63/.73 .61/.70 .67/.63 .58/.63 .61/.71 .57/.69 .47/.67 .75/.71 .78/.72 .74/.68 .66/.72 .54/.69

Figure 1. Second-order factor model fitted separately to entire Sample 1, and to Whites andHispanics in Sample 2. Factor loadings and error variances of Sample 1 and Sample 2 arepresented in consecutive order. Ovals indicate latent factors, rectangles indicate item indicators,and circles indicate uniqueness. All factor loadings were significant at p < .05.


the target coefficient (TC) recommended by Marsh and Hocevar (1985) fordetermining the usefulness of the second-order factor. The TC index for themodel was .52 and roughly represented the proportion of first-order factorvariance that was accounted for by the second-order factor. Taken together,the various validity indexes offered strong support for the second-ordermodel as a good representation of the experiences of ethnic harassment at theworkplace, of which bystander harassment was an integral aspect.

Descriptive Statistics

Participants’ responses on the items that comprise each of the threefactors were summed to form three indexes, and each index evidencedadequate reliability (verbal harassment, a = .88; exclusion, a = .84; bystanderharassment, a = .86). A substantial percentage of the respondents (69.2%)indicated that they had witnessed at least one of the ethnically harassingbehaviors at work during the last 2 years. In addition, 70.3% had experiencedsome form of verbal harassment, while 45.2% reported being excludedbecause of their race. Approximately one in three (36.3%) of respondentswho did not report any direct harassment reported being knowledgeableabout the harassment of their coworkers. Table 2 illustrates the means, stan-dard deviations, and between-factor correlations of the Verbal Harassment,Exclusion, and Bystander Harassment factors.

Previous work on the EHE (Schneider et al., 2000) focused only on non-Hispanic Whites and Hispanics. Coupled with the small number of non-Hispanic ethnic minorities in our samples, the current examination ofpossible group differences focused on non-Hispanic Whites (n = 109) and

Table 2

Means and Correlations of Bystander Harassment, Verbal Harassment, andExclusion Factors: Studies 1, 2, and 3

Study 1 Study 2 Study 3 Factors

M SD M SD M SD 1 2

1. Verbalharassment

7.31 3.59 6.50 3.12 7.03 3.74 —

2. Exclusion 4.23 2.06 4.02 2.02 4.56 2.77 .60/.53/.54 —3. Bystander

harassment10.99 4.86 9.89 4.64 10.31 5.35 .64/.55/.49 .64/.50/.54

Note. Between-factor correlations in each cell are presented in their respective studyorder.

2272 LOW ET AL.

Hispanics (n = 95). We conducted ANOVAs with ethnicity (White vs.Hispanic), gender, and Ethnicity ¥ Gender interaction as the inde-pendent variables and the three ethnic harassment facets (i.e., verbal harass-ment, exclusion, and bystander harassment) as dependent variables. Theresults indicate that Hispanic and White respondents did not score anydifferently in terms of their endorsement of the prevalence of ethnic harass-ment experiences at their workplace, largest t(157) = 2.32, p > .11. Similarly,there were no gender effects between women’s and men’s scores for the threefacets, largest t(157) = 2.22, p > .14. Neither were there significant interactioneffects between ethnicity, gender, and the ethnic harassment facets, largestF(2, 156) = 2.67, p > .08.

Discussion

The results for Study 1 suggest that knowledge of the ethnic harassmentof one’s coworkers is distinct from a person’s own experiences as a target ofethnic harassment. Not only were respondents from across a large variety ofoccupations able to distinguish their personal experiences as targets fromtheir knowledge of the experiences of their peers, most of them knew aboutthe ethnic harassment of their coworkers. Even among those who reportedlywere never targets themselves, a substantial proportion (one third) hadknowledge of their coworkers being ethnically harassed. In other words,bystander ethnic harassment was fairly commonplace for Study 1’s respon-dents. This result underlines the importance of assessing the perceptions ofindividuals occupying the same environment as the harassment’s focal target.

There were meaningful relations between direct and bystander experi-ences of ethnic harassment. Our results demonstrate convergent validity fromthe standpoint of a higher order factor. Although each first-order factor’scontent and the intercorrelations indicate distinctiveness between one’s expe-riences with bystander harassment, verbal harassment, and exclusion, factor-analytic results indicate that they contributed jointly to a commonexperiential core. The similarity between loadings of all three first-orderfactors in relation to the higher order factor suggest that knowledge of theethnic harassment of others bore equal weight to a person’s personal expe-riences with ethnic harassment when representing the amount of ethnic con-flict in the environment. Mental representations as to what constitutes ethnicharassment likely consisted of more than just personal experiences as a directtarget, but also included what we know about the experiences of other peoplewithin the same environment.

Research on gender and ethnic differences in the appraisals of ethnicity-based conflicts have indicated little difference in responses between womenand men (Landrine & Klonoff, 1996). Therefore, the lack of gender differ-


ences was unsurprising and was in line with previous findings. The lack ofethnic differences in bystander ethnic harassment suggests that peoplewitnessed or heard about instances of harassment, regardless of their ownethnicity. It was more surprising when there were no ethnic differences in theendorsement of direct ethnic harassment.

A number of studies (e.g., Rosenfeld, Newell, & Le, 1998) have found asignificant proportion of Whites in the United States to perceive themselvesas victims of reverse discrimination. Moreover, the sample for Study 1 camefrom an urban population center in the southwestern United States, whereHispanics are the majority ethnic group in the community. Being a minorityis visually salient and distinctive. The stigmatized (in this case, White) personis likely to interpret social situations in terms of their status (Niemann &Dovidio, 1998), which might result in the increase in Whites’ perceptions ofethnic harassment in their environments. Sampling from the same geographicregion, Schneider et al. (2000) found that Whites and Hispanics reportedsimilar amounts of ethnic harassment. Thus, there is both precedent andreason for this finding.

Study 2

Although Study 1 indicated that there were no significant differencesbetween non-White Hispanic and White respondents’ self-reports of theprevalence of ethnic harassment they witnessed, knew about, or experienced,equivalence in means did not imply that these experiential constructs wereinvariant across ethnic groups (Meredith, 1993). As such, a multigroupconfirmatory factor analysis was performed to validate the factorialrelationship—laid out in Study 1—between bystander harassment, verbalharassment, and exclusion across Hispanic and White workers.

The deleterious well-being consequences of direct ethnic harassment arewell documented (Krieger & Sidney, 1996; Schneider et al., 2000). As a stressorin and of itself, knowledge of the ethnic harassment of others should demon-strate incremental validity over direct harassment in predicting negative out-comes. In light of a robust relationship between stress and job satisfaction(Brief & Weiss, 2002), we examined respondents’ job satisfaction as a correlateto their experiences as targets and their knowledge of their coworkers’ harass-ment. Previous studies (e.g., Friday, Moss, & Friday, 2004) have suggestedpossible ethnic differences in job satisfaction, especially between Hispanic andWhite workers. Non-White workers in the United States tend to report lowersatisfaction with their jobs, compared to their White peers. Therefore, weexpect to replicate a main effect difference on job satisfaction ratings. Fur-thermore, we examined possible interaction effects between the harassment

2274 LOW ET AL.

facets and ethnicity on job satisfaction. Affective disposition has also beenimplicated as a confound that artificially inflates correlations among self-reported stressors (in our case, ethnic harassment) and strains (Judge, Erez, &Thoreson, 2000). Thus, we controlled for respondents’ affective disposition inour analyses.

The purpose of Study 2 is threefold: (a) to replicate the factor structure ofoverall ethnic harassment experienced at the workplace; (b) to examine if thesame factor structure and factor correlations existed for both Hispanics andWhites; and (c) to demonstrate bystander harassment’s incremental value inunderstanding respondents’ satisfaction with their coworkers and their workabove and beyond what is accounted for by their direct experiences as targetsand by their affective disposition.

Method

Participants

The sample for Study 2 was drawn from two midsized universities locatedin the southwestern United States. The first sample consisted of 340 partici-pants (109 Hispanics, 231 Whites), 62% of whom were staff and 38% ofwhom were faculty. A large majority of the faculty was White (89.9%), butthe staff included equal numbers of Whites and ethnic minorities. The firstsample was comprised of 220 women and 94 men (26 respondents did notindicate their gender). The second sample consisted of 141 Hispanic and 138White graduate students (187 female, 90 male, 2 participants did not indicatetheir gender). The small number of non-Hispanic ethnic minorities inboth samples coupled with the sample size restraints of structural equationmodeling constrained our analyses to non-Hispanic White and Hispanicrespondents.


We used the EHE and the BEHE measures described in Study 1 and thetwo additional measures that we describe as follows.

Job and coworker satisfaction. We assessed respondents’ satisfaction withtheir work and with their coworkers with the relevant subscales of the JobDescriptive Index (JDI; Smith, Kendall, & Hulin, 1969). Participantsrespond Yes, No, or ? to a series of adjectives describing relevant character-istics of their work and coworkers. Both subscales evidenced adequatereliability ( job, a = .83; coworker, a = .87). The JDI is one of the most


frequently used measures of job satisfaction (Spector, 1997). Numerousstudies have demonstrated the reliability and validity of its subscales (for areview, see Balzer et al., 1997). It has also demonstrated measurement invari-ance across heterogeneous populations (Drasgow & Kanfer, 1985).

Affective disposition. A revised version of Weitz’s (1952) Neutral ObjectsSatisfaction Questionnaire (NOSQ) was used to measure affective disposi-tion. The 13 items assessed respondents’ satisfaction with neutral items (e.g.,color of stop signs). Judge and Hulin (1993) found that individuals perceivethings, including themselves, more favorably if they are highly satisfied withthese neutral objects as a whole. Respondents indicated on a 3-point scalewhether they felt satisfied, neutral, or dissatisfied in regard to each object.Internal consistency was adequate (a = .75). Judge and Bretz (1993) reportedthe results of a comprehensive analysis of the NOSQ. They found that it hadvery favorable psychometric properties and was more stable over time thanthe Positive and Negative Affect Scales (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen,1988). In the present study, the alpha of the scale was .74.

A package containing the paper-and-pencil survey and a prepaid returnenvelope was mailed to all staff and faculty members in the first sample andto all graduate students in the second sample. A cover letter assured respon-dents of the anonymity of their responses and informed them that they werefree to decline to participate in the survey or to skip any part of the survey.The survey was described as a workplace experiences questionnaire to reducepriming and demand effects. The response rates for usable surveys were24.0% and 21.7% for the first and second samples, respectively, mirroring therates of other studies using mail surveys (Krosnick, 1999).3 Based on censusdata provided by the human resources office, there were no ethnic differencesin response rates.

Results

Multigroup Confirmatory Factor Analyses

The three competing ethnic harassment models—a one general factormodel, a three uncorrelated factors model, and a second-order model—weretested using multigroup confirmatory factor analysis (MCFA) to examinetheir fit for Hispanics and Whites. The MCFA procedure involved fittingsample data to a sequence of increasingly restrictive constraints (Vandenburg& Lance, 2000). Similar to Study 1, the data evidenced significant multivari-

3Studies on the relationships between sample representativeness and response rates haveshown that achieving higher response rates or correcting for sample composition bias does nottranslate into more accurate results (for a review, see Krosnick, 1999).

2276 LOW ET AL.

ate non-normality (Mardia’s coefficient = 257.75). As such, the Satorra–Bentler scaled chi square and associated robust errors (Satorra & Bentler,1994) were used also in Study 2’s SEM analysis.

The initial test of equivalence in the sequence examined the degree towhich the item-to-factor loadings are equivalent across ethnic groups (i.e.,configural invariance) and provide the baseline for comparing the fit ofsubsequently more stringent invariant models. Fit indexes under this con-straint were within recommended limits of good model fit (see Table 3). Thesecond-order factor model thus evidenced configural invariance across bothWhites and Hispanics.

Next, we evaluated the degree to which the strength of the relationsbetween the indicators and the latent traits are equivalent across ethnicgroups (i.e., metric invariance or weak factorial invariance). In addition tothe fit indexes of each subsequent CFA model, we used the differencesbetween models’ comparative fit index (DCFI), McDonald’s noncentralityindex (DMc), and Gamma Hat (DGamma Hat) to evaluate between-groupinvariance with each succeeding constraint. Cheung and Rensvold (2002)found these three indicators to be independent of both model complexity andsample size, and are not correlated with the overall fit measures. They rec-ommended critical values of DGamma Hat (or DGHat, DCFI, and DMc, knowncollectively as DGFIs) to be smaller than or equal to -.01, -.02, and -.001 asindicators that the null hypothesis of invariance should not be rejected.

When the pattern and the strength of factor loadings were constrained tobe equal, the decrease in model fit was negligible. This was supported byDCFI, DMc, and DGHat values that were below recommended cutoffs. Findingsuch metric invariance demonstrated that the indicators of bystander harass-ment, verbal harassment, and exclusion function equivalently for Hispanicand White workers. The likelihood that the harassment constructs are quali-tatively similar and that the same latent variables were being measured inboth groups was increased further by a lack of decrease in observed fit whenthe constraint of equal factor covariances was added. When uniqueness oritem/factor errors were constrained to be equal across ethnic groups in addi-tion to previous constraints, there was a significant decrease in model fit.Although fit indexes remained within acceptable limits, DCFI, DMc, andDGHat were all larger than critical values, suggesting that the null hypothesis ofresidual variance invariance should be rejected.

Although there was strong support for weak factorial invariance acrossethnic groups, it does not mean that members from different ethnic groupswho had the same position on the latent ethnic harassment constructs wouldhave the same expected raw score. Under an MCFA framework, differentialscale functioning could only be evaluated by tests of strong factorial invari-ance. Strong factorial invariance was tested by adding intercept terms into


Tab

le3

Mul

tigr

oup

Con

firm

ator

yF

acto

rA

naly

sis

(Max

imum

Lik

elih

ood)

Fit

Inde

xes

for

Ver

balE

thni

cH

aras

smen

t,E

xclu

sion

,an

dB

ysta

nder

Eth

nic

Har

assm

ent

Item

s:S

tudy

2

Mod

el

Mod

elfit

inde

xes

Mod

elin

vari

ance

inde

xes

sb-c

2(d

f)C

FI

IFI

NN

FI

Mc

RM

SEA

(95%

CI)

DCF

IDM

cDG

Hat

Con

figur

alin

vari

ance

185.

14(1

40)

.95

.95

.94

.96

034

(.02

1-

.044

)—

——

MI

204.

02(1

54)

.95

.95

.94

.96

.034

(.02

0-

.046

)-.

004

-.00

4-.

001

MI

+in

vari

ant

fact

orco

vari

ance

s20

4.02

(154

).9

5.9

5.9

4.9

6.0

34(.

020

-.0

46)

-.00

4-.

004

-.00

1

MI

+in

vari

ant

fact

orco

vari

ance

s+

inva

rian

tun

ique

ness

268.

39(1

71)

.90

.90

.89

.92

.046

(.03

5-

.046

)-.

051

-.04

-.01

1

Inva

rian

tin

terc

epts

244.

47(1

54)

.94

.94

.93

.95

.046

(.03

5-

.057

)-.

010

-.01

4-.

008

Stro

ngfa

ctor

iali

nvar

ianc

e24

4.88

(157

).9

1.9

1.8

7.9

3.0

56(.

047

-.0

66)

-.04

8-.

029

-.01

0St

rict

fact

oria

linv

aria

nce

379.

32(1

86)

.85

.85

.82

.87

061

(.05

2-

.070

)-.

097

-.09

4-.

033

Not

e.sb

-c2

=Sa

torr

a-B

entl

ersc

aled

chi-

squa

re;C

FI

=co

mpa

rati

vefit

inde

x;IF

I=

incr

emen

talfi

tin

dex;

NN

FI

=no

n-no

rmed

fitin

dex;

Mc

=M

cDon

ald’

sno

n-ce

ntra

lity

inde

x;R

MSE

A=

root

mea

nsq

uare

erro

rof

appr

oxim

atio

n;C

I=

confi

denc

ein

terv

al;

MI

=m

etri

cin

vari

ance

.

2278 LOW ET AL.

the factor model and then evaluating whether, for each item, the regression ofthe item on the latent construct was equivalent across groups (Meredith,1993). To do so, we first examined if item means were equivalent across ethnicgroups by relaxing all previous constraints and subsequently constrainingintercepts of items to be the same across groups. Both the model fit indexesand the DGFIs under this constraint (i.e., invariant intercepts) were close tobaseline (i.e., configural invariance), suggesting that Whites and Hispanicshave similar mean-item responses.

Next, we tested the model for strong factorial invariance where patternmatrices, as well as intercepts, were held invariant. Although fit indexesindicated that a strong factoral invariant model was tenable, its DGFIs wereabove critical values. At the same time, it is important to note that Cheungand Rensvold’s (2002) recommendations were based on rejecting the nullwith a p value of .01. When the p value was relaxed to .05, the strong invariantmodel’s DMc and DGHat values fell within the range of the less stringentcutoffs. Taken together with the observation that goodness of fit for stronginvariance was not so different from the less constrained models—with fitindexes marginally below recommended cutoffs for good fit—we were con-fident that the second-factor model was equivalent for the two groups.

Factorial Validity

Given the presence of strong invariance across Whites and Hispanics, wefit the second-order model to the combined sample (N = 619). The model fitwas good, sb-c2(70, N = 619) = 109.35, ns (CFI = .96; IFI = .96; NNFI = .95;Mc = .97; RMSEA = .032). The correlations between factors for the aggre-gated sample in Study 2 approximated findings in Study 1 (see Table 2). Theitem/factor loadings and uniqueness of the second-order model are shown inFigure 1.

Using similar procedures outlined in Study 1, we examined the validity ofthe three ethnic harassment factors, as well as the higher order Overall EthnicHarassment Experiences construct. The rvc(h) indexes (Fornell & Larcker,1981), which denoted the proportion of variance in the items explained byeach underlying factor, were .52, .51, and .51 for bystander harassment,verbal harassment, and exclusion, respectively. These values are above the.50 recommended cutoff criterion, indicating that the items were adequateindicators of their corresponding construct. The variance accounted for byeach first-order factor (i.e., rvc(h)) also exceeded its individual shared variance(g2

bystander–verbal = .45; g2bystander–exclusion = .41; g2

verbal–exclusion = .48). Furthermore,none of the 95% confidence intervals around each correlation betweenthe first-order factors subsumed unity (CIbystander–verbal = .53 to .81;


CIbystander–exclusion = .45 to .83; CIverbal–exclusion = .55 to .85), supporting the dis-criminant validity of each harassment factor. The TC index (Marsh &Hocevar, 1985) for the model was .63. In sum, Study 2 CFA results closelyreplicate Study 1’s findings, supporting our conceptualization of bystanderethnic harassment as a construct that is separate from direct harassment, butthat jointly contributes to individuals’ experiences of ethnic harassment attheir workplace.


When the responses were aggregated by the three categories of ethnicharassment, 55.6% of staff and faculty in the first sample and 46.4% ofgraduate students in the second sample reported having witnessed or receivedknowledge of harassing incidents based on race/ethnicity. Among the staffand faculty, 64.2% had experienced some form of verbal ethnic harassment,and 33.3% had been excluded because of their race/ethnicity. For the gradu-ate student sample, 55.9% reported experiencing verbal harassment, and29.0% reported being excluded. In all, staff and faculty members in the firstsample reported higher rates of ethnic harassment, compared to graduatestudents in the second sample, but these rates were still lower than thecommunity sample in Study 1. Approximately one third (34.8%) ofthe sample did not indicate any personal experiences as a target. Amongthese respondents, 30.9% indicated knowledge of their coworkers’ ethnicharassment.

Incremental Validity

We examined the relationships of bystander ethnic harassment experi-ences, respondents’ affective disposition, and their satisfaction with their joband coworkers using a series of multiple regression analyses. The regressionanalyses consisted of four steps. Affective disposition was entered first, fol-lowed by ethnicity, then by direct experiences of verbal harassment andexclusion together, and finally by bystander harassment (see Table 4).

Bystander harassment was the only significant predictor of job satisfac-tion. Furthermore, it accounted for significant R2 increases above andbeyond the contributions of exclusionary harassment and ethnicity for sat-isfaction with coworkers.The direction of the beta weights indicates thatsatisfaction with one’s job and coworkers was lower for individuals reportingmore incidents of bystander harassment. In addition, we found that there wasa significant effect of ethnicity on coworker satisfaction, such that Hispanicsreported lower levels of coworker satisfaction, t(627) = 1.97, p < .05. This was

2280 LOW ET AL.

congruent with Schneider et al.’s (2000) findings indicating a main effect ofethnicity on job-related attitudes. Finally, there were no significant interac-tion effects of ethnicity on any of the three harassment categories—anexpected finding, given strong factorial invariance of the measurementmodel.

Finally, we conducted dominance analysis4 (Azen & Budescu, 2003) as away of comparing the relative importance of regression predictors. For bothjob and coworker satisfaction, bystander harassment demonstrated completedominance over verbal harassment and exclusion. It had the greatest predic-tive ability of the three types of ethnic harassment when they were consideredsimultaneously.

4Tabulation of the results of the dominance analysis is available from the first author uponrequest.

Table 4

Regression Analyses on Coworker and Job Satisfaction for Combined Samples:Study 2

Model

Coworker satisfaction Job satisfaction

b R2 DR2 DF b R2 DR2 DF

1. Disposition .07 .004 .004 2.62 .05 .002 .002 1.472. Ethnicity .11** .017 .013 7.77** -.06 .006 .004 2.243a. Verbal

harassment-.01 .034 .016 4.95** .00 .009 .002 0.71

3b. Exclusion -.12** -.054. Bystander

harassment-.12** .042 .008 4.82* -.13** .020 .011 6.57**

5. VerbalHarassment ¥Ethnicity

-.23 .046 .004 1.33 -.19 .021 .001 0.53

5b. Exclusion ¥Ethnicity

.31 .14

6. BystanderHarassment ¥Ethnicity

.02 .046 .000 0.01 -.08 .022 .001 0.15

*p < .05. **p < .01.


Discussion

Multigroup confirmatory factor analysis indicates that the structural rela-tions between bystander ethnic harassment, verbal harassment, andexclusion—as well as their joint contributions to one’s overall experienceswith workplace ethnic conflict—were invariant for White and Hispanicworkers. This result replicates the lack of ethnic differences in mean levels ofall three facets of harassment demonstrated in Study 1 and provides addi-tional support for our assertion that, regardless of ethnicity, respondentsrecognized harassment based on ethnicity when they witnessed or heardabout it.

The importance of knowledge of harassment in and of itself was shown tobe an integral aspect of an individual’s experiences with ethnic harassment.Study 2’s findings indicate that workers’ experiences with bystander harass-ment had deleterious consequences on their satisfaction with their coworkersand their jobs, even after their affective disposition, their ethnicity, and theirpossible experiences as targets were taken into account. When verbal harass-ment, exclusion, and bystander harassment were considered simultaneously,bystander harassment evidenced the largest negative impact on individuals’job and coworker satisfaction. These findings imply that an evaluation ofethnic harassment and its consequences through the conventional focus ondirect victims might have resulted in an underestimate of the negative effectsof such behaviors.

Study 3

Studies 1 and 2 established the role of knowledge of others’ harassment inhow we evaluate ethnic harassment. In both studies, rates of bystanderharassment, verbal harassment, and exclusion were high, such that many ofthe respondents were likely to have knowledge of the harassment of theircoworkers and to have been direct targets themselves. Although this mannerof analysis was critical in our understanding of ethnic harassment as acomplex, multidimensional phenomenon, the methodology lent itself to thecommon criticism of studies utilizing single-source retrospective data: thatindividuals who perceive themselves to be victims of ethnic harassment aremore likely to endorse items describing similar incidents that happened totheir coworkers, and to respond more negatively to outcome measures.Moreover, the aggregation of targets and nontargets diluted assertions thatknowledge of harassment itself was a unique stressor, apart from one’sexperiences as a target.

As such, we divided Study 3’s sample into four groups: (a) nontargetswithout knowledge of other people’s harassment (nontarget/no knowledge);

2282 LOW ET AL.

(b) nontargets with knowledge of other people’s harassment (nontarget/knowledge); (c) targets without knowledge of other people’s harassment(target/no knowledge); and (d) targets with knowledge of other people’sharassment (target/knowledge). Occupational, psychological, and health-related outcomes were examined across the four groups.

To the effect that direct harassment and bystander harassment constitutediscrete stressors, we expect the nontarget/no knowledge (i.e., optimal) groupto evidence the most optimal outcomes, followed by the target/no-knowledgegroup and the nontarget/knowledge group. Individuals who were targets andhad knowledge of others’ harassment (i.e., target/knowledge group) wereexpected to suffer a “double whammy” and thus to have the worst outcome.To control for possible moderator effects as a result of ethnicity or affectivedisposition, we conducted a series of hierarchical regression analyses exam-ining the deleterious outcome consequences of bystander ethnic harassmentbetween targets and nontargets.

Method

Participants

The sample for Study 3 consisted of 421 graduate students from the sameuniversity as the first sample in Study 2. We formed four separate subgroupsbased on an examination of participants’ responses to the EHE scale(Schneider et al., 2000) and the BEHE measure. The nontarget/no-knowledge and the nontarget/knowledge subgroups consisted of 103 respon-dents (11 non-White Hispanics, 92 Whites) and 47 respondents (9 non-WhiteHispanics, 38 Whites), respectively. Both subgroups indicated that they didnot have any personal encounters with ethnic harassment over the last 2years. The target/no-knowledge and the target/knowledge subgroups con-sisted of 84 respondents (19 non-White Hispanics, 65 Whites) and 177respondents (56 non-White Hispanics, 121 Whites), respectively. The lattertwo subgroups are characterized by their members’ endorsement of havingexperienced at least one of the seven items in the EHE scale. Knowledgeversus no knowledge differentiated whether respondents knew about theircoworkers being ethnically harassed.


The procedure was identical to that used in Study 2, and the response ratewas 22.4%, mirroring the response rates of other studies using mail surveys


(Fox, Crask, & Kim, 1988; Krosnick, 1999). Based on census data providedby the university registrar, there were no ethnic differences in response rates,compared to the graduate student population.

In addition to the measures used in Study 2—namely, the BEHE measure,the EHE scale (Schneider et al., 2000), affective disposition (a = .70), jobsatisfaction (a = .86), and coworker satisfaction (a = .79)—we assessed sat-isfaction with supervision, respondents’ self-esteem, self-reported health con-ditions, and satisfaction with physical health. These additional measures aredescribed in more detail later. Similar to Study 2, only coworker satisfactiondiffered significantly between Hispanic and White respondents. Ethnicity hadno main effect for all other measures in Study 3.

Satisfaction with supervision. The Supervisor subscale of the JDI (Smithet al., 1969) asks respondents to indicate Yes, No, or ? to a series of adjectivesdescribing relevant characteristics of supervisors. This scale evidencedadequate internal consistency in the present study (a = .86).

Global self-esteem. We used Rosenberg’s (1965) 10-item Self-EsteemScale to measure global self-esteem. The scale, consisting of 10 self-descriptive statements requiring agreement ratings on a 4-point scale, iswidely used (Andrews & Brown, 1993). The scale’s internal consistency in thepresent study was adequate (a = .86).

Health-related outcomes. We assessed physical well-being via measures ofhealth conditions and health satisfaction. The Health Conditions Index(HCI) is a 12-item Yes/No checklist of health and physical symptoms adaptedfrom the Cornell Medical Checklist (Brodman, Erdman, Lorge, & Wolff,1949), which has been widely used in various fields of medical science.

Respondents indicated the presence or absence of specific health symp-toms, such as headaches, shortness of breath upon exertion, and difficultyfalling asleep. We assessed participants’ satisfaction with their physicalhealth via the Health Satisfaction subscale of the Retirement DescriptiveIndex (RDI; Smith et al., 1969). Participants responded Yes, No, or ? to eightshort descriptive phrases (e.g., “Feel tired all the time”) about their feelingsand perceptions of their health. Internal consistency for the HCI (a = .70)and the Health Satisfaction subscale (a = .75) were comparable with previouslarge-sample studies (e.g., Cortina & Magley, 2003).

Results

Confirmatory Factor Analysis

We conducted a CFA on the entire Study 3 sample (N = 421). Similarto the previous two studies, Study 3’s data were significantly non-normal

2284 LOW ET AL.

(Mardia’s coefficient = 111.57). Fit indexes based on the Satorra-Bentlerscaled chi square and robust errors, sb-c2(140, N = 421) = 186.99, ns(CFI = .93; IFI = .94; NNFI = .92; Mc = .94; RMSEA = .043) indicate anacceptable model fit, providing another replication of the factorial relation-ships between bystander ethnic harassment, verbal harassment, and exclu-sionary practices. The between-factor correlations closely resemble those ofStudy 2 (see Table 2).


Almost 60% (58.6%) of the total sample in Study 3 reported experiencingverbal harassment, 36.5% reported being excluded as a result of their ethnic-ity, and 54.3% had experienced bystander harassment. For graduate studentswho did not indicate experiencing any direct harassment, 42.2% of the sub-sample reported experiencing some form of bystander harassment. A com-parison of means between the targets and nontargets indicates thatrespondents with prior experiences as direct victims of ethnic harassmentreported significantly more bystander harassment than did those who hadnot been harassed directly (target, M = 12.23; nontarget, M = 8.72),t(439) = 5.92, p < .01.

Relationships with Outcome Variables

Table 5 shows the means and standard deviations of respondents’ satis-faction with their jobs, coworkers, and supervisors; their global self-esteem;reports of physical well-being; and satisfaction with their health, brokendown into four subgroups: nontarget/no-knowledge, target/no-knowledge,nontarget/knowledge, and target/knowledge. There is an unequivocal trendin outcome means across the subgroups. Respondents who were neithertargets nor bystanders were the most satisfied with their jobs, supervisors,and coworkers; had the highest self-esteem; and had the least health prob-lems. On the other hand, respondents who experienced direct and bystanderharassment had the worst outcomes. The groups that suffered either direct orbystander harassment, but not in combination, had outcomes that wereworse than the nontarget/no-knowledge group, but better than the target/knowledge group.

ANOVAs indicate significant between-group differences for all outcomes,except job satisfaction. Post hoc tests (Tukey’s honestly significant difference;p < .05) show that coworker satisfaction, supervisor satisfaction, self-esteem,health satisfaction, and health conditions for the nontarget/no-knowledgegroup were significantly more optimal, compared to the target/knowledgegroup.


Tab

le5

Mea

nsan

dF

Sta

tist

ics

for

Sub

grou

ps:

Stu

dy3

Scal

e

Non

targ

ets

Tar

gets

F(4

,418

)

No-

know

ledg

e(n

=10

3)K

now

ledg

e(n

=47

)N

o-kn

owle

dge

(n=

84)

Kno

wle

dge

(n=

177)

MS

DM

SD

MS

DM

SD

Job

sati

sfac

tion

15.6

98.

6014

.63

8.51

14.5

38.

3713

.90

8.07

0.77

Cow

orke

rsa

tisf

acti

on25

.49

5.23

25.5

54.

8625

.10

5.08

23.0

66.

102.

73*

Supe

rvis

orsa

tisf

acti

on26

.04

6.32

24.7

66.

7425

.42

5.94

24.0

97.

212.

52*

Self

-est

eem

6.00

0.81

5.78

1.05

5.74

1.05

5.64

0.90

2.76

*H

ealt

hco

ndit

ions

16.0

21.

7915

.34

2.01

15.5

22.

0114

.91

2.59

4.44

**H

ealt

hsa

tisf

acti

on22

.14

2.08

21.7

22.

2921

.47

2.28

21.2

32.

592.

45*

Not

e.P

ost

hoc

anal

yses

(Tuk

ey’s

hone

stly

sign

ifica

ntdi

ffer

ence

test

)in

dica

tesi

gnifi

cant

diff

eren

ces

for

all

scal

es,

exce

ptjo

bsa

tisf

acti

on,b

etw

een

the

nont

arge

t/no

-kno

wle

dge

subg

roup

and

the

targ

et/k

now

ledg

esu

bgro

up.

*p<

.05.

**p

<.0

1.

2286 LOW ET AL.

To control for the possible effects of ethnicity and affective disposition onthe aforementioned outcome variables, we conducted hierarchical multipleregression on two groups: targets (formed by aggregating the target/no-knowledge and the target/knowledge subgroups; aggregated n = 261) andnontargets (formed by aggregating the nontarget/no-knowledge and thenontarget/knowledge subgroups; aggregated n = 150). For both target andnontarget groups, disposition and ethnicity were entered first, followed bybystander harassment. Verbal harassment and exclusion were added subse-quently in an additional step for the group who reported experiencing directharassment.

Table 6 shows that for those who had not experienced direct ethnicharassment, bystander ethnic harassment was a significant predictor of lowerjob, coworker, and supervisory satisfaction. This was true after controllingfor affective disposition and ethnicity. In addition, for those who had expe-rienced direct ethnic harassment, bystander ethnic harassment significantlypredicted job, supervisory, and coworker satisfaction over and above theeffects of affective disposition, ethnicity, and even personal experiences ofdirect harassment.

Our predictions regarding the negative relationship between bystanderethnic harassment and psychological and health-related outcomes werepartly supported. For those who did not experience direct harassment (i.e.,nontargets), witnessing or having knowledge of an ethnically derogatingevent was predictive of reduced self-esteem and health satisfaction, but not ofpoorer health conditions (see Table 7). Again, these relations were true,regardless of affective disposition and ethnicity. However, for those who hadexperienced direct ethnic harassment, being a bystander was not associatedwith lowered psychological or poorer health-related outcomes.

Discussion

The most significant finding of Study 3 was that individuals who were nottargets of ethnic harassment, but who knew or had witnessed the harassmentof others, suffered negative consequences comparable to direct victims. Thesimilarities in outcomes for graduate students who were either targets ornontargets who knew the harassment of others suggested that knowledgealone had an impact on well-being that was similar to being directly harassed.The results demonstrate that knowledge of someone else’s experiences withethnic harassment is a stressor that can be distinguished from an individual’spersonal encounters with ethnic harassment.

Respondents’ well-being was most optimal when they were not exposed toeither form of ethnic harassment. When exposed to either direct or bystanderharassment (but not both), the graduate students reported being less satisfied


Tab

le6

Hie

rarc

hica

lReg

ress

ion

Ana

lysi

son

Job

Sat

isfa

ctio

n,C

owor

ker

Sat

isfa

ctio

n,an

dS

uper

viso

rS

atis

fact

ion

for

Tar

gets

and

Non

targ

ets:

Stu

dy3

Job

sati

sfac

tion

Cow

orke

rsa

tisf

acti

onSu

perv

isor

sati

sfac

tion

Tar

gets

Non

targ

ets

Tar

gets

Non

targ

ets

Tar

gets

Non

targ

ets

bR

2b

R2

bR

2b

R2

bR

2b

R2

Step

1D

ispo

siti

on.2

1**

.05a

.35*

*.1

2a.1

9**

.04a

.06

.05a

.24*

*.0

6.0

3.0

0E

thni

city

-.07

.02

.10

.18*

.01

.02

Step

2D

ispo

siti

on.2

0**

.07a

.34*

*.1

6a.1

8**

.07a

.05

.08

.23*

*.0

9a.0

2.0

3a

Eth

nici

ty-.

06.0

4.1

2.2

0*.0

4.0

4B

ysta

nder

hara

ssm

ent

-.14

*-.

19**

-.17

**-.

21**

-.19

*-.

18*

Step

3D

ispo

siti

on.2

0**

.07

.18*

*.0

9a.2

3**

.13a

Eth

nici

ty-.

06.1

1.0

4B

ysta

nder

hara

ssm

ent

-.13

*-.

15*

-.08

Ver

balh

aras

smen

t-.

08-.

12-.

14*

Exc

lusi

on-.

09-.

14*

-.12

Not

e.T

arge

tsex

peri

ence

ddi

rect

hara

ssm

ent,

whi

leno

ntar

gets

did

not

expe

rien

cedi

rect

hara

ssm

ent.

a Sign

ifica

ntch

ange

inR

2co

mpa

red

topr

ior

step

.*p

<.0

5.**

p<

.01.

2288 LOW ET AL.

Tab

le7

Hie

rarc

hica

lR

egre

ssio

nA

naly

sis

onS

elf-

Est

eem

,H

ealt

hC

ondi

tion

s,an

dH

ealt

hS

atis

fact

ion

for

Tar

gets

and

Non

targ

ets:

Stu

dy3

Self

-est

eem

Hea

lth

cond

itio

nH

ealt

hsa

tisf

acti

on

Tar

gets

Non

targ

ets

Tar

gets

Non

targ

ets

Tar

gets

Non

targ

ets

bR

2b

R2

bR

2b

R2

bR

2b

R2

Step

1D

ispo

siti

on.2

1**

.04a

.04

.01

.23*

*.0

6a.1

6**

.03

.25*

*.0

8a.1

4.0

2E

thni

city

-.03

.09

-.11

.06

-.14

*.0

4St

ep2

Dis

posi

tion

.21*

*.0

4.0

3.0

3a.2

3**

.07

.16*

.03

.25*

*.1

0a.1

2.1

3a

Eth

nici

ty-.

03.1

0-.

10.0

6-.

11.0

7B

ysta

nder

hara

ssm

ent

-.01

-.13

*-.

07-.

02-.

16**

-.33

**St

ep3

Dis

posi

tion

.21*

*.0

5.2

3**

.07

.24*

*.1

1E

thni

city

-.03

-.10

-.11

Bys

tand

erha

rass

men

t-.

03-.

05-.

12V

erba

lhar

assm

ent

-.11

-.05

-.03

Exc

lusi

on-.

05-.

09-.

11

Not

e.T

arge

tsex

peri

ence

ddi

rect

hara

ssm

ent,

whi

leno

ntar

gets

did

not

expe

rien

cedi

rect

hara

ssm

ent.

a Sign

ifica

ntch

ange

inR

2co

mpa

red

topr

ior

step

.*p

<.0

5.**

p<

.01.


with their coworkers and with their supervisors, lower self-esteem, poorerhealth, and decreased satisfaction with their health. The worst outcomes,however, were associated with those who knew about other people beingethnically harassed and who themselves were targets. This dose-responsetrend in Study 3 suggests that the deleterious effects of bystander and directharassment are additive. When affective disposition and ethnicity were con-trolled, the results remained unchanged: Nontargets suffered poorer out-comes in relation to their exposure to bystander harassment. Given that morethan one third of Study 3’s sample did not report experiences with directharassment, our finding suggests that by focusing primarily on the focaltarget, previous studies on the impact of ethnic harassment might haveunderestimated the damage of such behaviors.

General Discussion

The present research demonstrates that bearing witness to acts of harass-ment based on ethnicity, listening to explicit accounts of these incidents, oreven having firsthand observations of such events is in and of itself stressful.Furthermore, these bystander experiences were commonplace occurrencesamong the people we sampled, and were as frequent as personal encounterswith ethnic harassment. Knowledge of the ethnic harassment of one’scoworkers was associated with deleterious well-being consequences that werecomparable to those suffered by direct targets.

In effect, respondents who knew about the harassment of others, but whothemselves were not targets—individuals typically not classified as victims ofethnic harassment—were negatively affeccted as well. Our analyses suggestthat such knowledge is an integral aspect of how individuals come to expe-rience ethnic conflict in their organizations. Employees who knew about theircoworkers’ harassment and who were themselves victims of direct harass-ment thus suffered the equivalent of a double whammy: They reported thepoorest occupational, psychological, and health-related outcomes.

It is possible to argue that these relationships between bystander harass-ment and well-being outcomes are spurious and that employees who werenegatively affected by their coworkers’ experiences with ethnic harassmentwere overly sensitive targets, with tendencies to perceive ethnic/racial inten-tions in all behaviors, regardless of whether these actions were directed at themor at their coworkers. There is little indication in the present data that this is thecase. If reports of bystander ethnic harassment and their negative impact werelargely from individuals who had been sensitized by their own experiences toperceive similar behaviors enacted on others, those who were not exposed todirect harassment were unlikely to suffer adverse outcomes. Our results,

2290 LOW ET AL.

however, show that one need not be a target to be negatively affected; justknowing about the harassment of other people has negative effects.

Organizational context variables, including tolerance for ethnic harass-ment, are more probable moderators for the relationships, among directharassment, bystander harassment, and well-being. Organizational toler-ance, for example, would increase the pervasiveness of harassing incidentsand thus increase the likelihood of a person witnessing or learning about theethnic harassment of his or her coworkers. By connecting occupational,psychological, and health-related outcomes to discrete incidents of ethnicharassment—encompassing instances experienced personally, observed, orheard about—our results provide a link between organizational climate/culture and the consequential outcomes manifested in the individual.

Given that ethnic minorities are more likely to be direct targets of ethnicharassment, the unintended effect of focusing only on the experiences of thetarget is the belief that ethnic harassment and its negative consequences arerestricted only to a small number of ethnic minority individuals (Ancis &Symanski, 2001). These perspectives may inadvertently encourage ignoranceabout and apathy toward ethnicity-based harassment. The present results,however, indicate that Whites and Hispanics shared similar representationsof ethnic harassment in their workplaces and experienced these incidents atsimilar rates. Furthermore, bystander ethnic harassment was equally predic-tive of negative outcomes for members of both ethnic groups, regardless ofwhether they were direct targets.

These findings are not unique in that similar results have been found forsexual harassment. Miner-Rubino & Cortina (2004) have shown thatworking in a misogynistic context had negative effects on both female andmale employees’ well-being, even though some had never been targeted per-sonally. Simply put, ethnic harassment cannot be dismissed as “just a minor-ity problem,” but one that has psychological, health-related, andoccupational repercussions on everyone within an organization.

A central issue that arises from the paper-and-pencil methodologyadopted in the present study is the issue of perception; that reports ofbystanders’ experiences of ethnic harassment are perceptions, rather thanfacts. The methodology used within this paper certainly does not lend itselffully to the adjudication of this issue. However, the nature of our results,regardless of whether these incidents are real or perceived, indicates thatthese perceptions have very real consequences.

A second methodological issue that merits comment is that of causality.We used a cross-sectional correlational design. Thus, evidence from theregression analyses reported here cannot provide direct evidence of causalityregarding the relationships between correlates that we examined andbystander and direct ethnic harassment. Future research might consider


longitudinal approaches, as well as laboratory measurements of physiologi-cal reactions to examine this issue further.

Characteristics of the targets can influence perceptions of the bystandersand the associated variables. It is possible that respondents’ evaluations ofthe incidents were dependent on the group membership of the direct target inrelation to their own, or on their relational ties to the target. Besides one’saffective disposition, certain characteristics of the respondents (e.g., ethnicidentity, coping responses) might also influence their perceptions of the inci-dents. Moreover, the current study only examined invariance across Whitesand Hispanics. It remains possible that differences may exist between otherethnic minority populations. Thus, the influences of several potential mod-erators must be investigated in future studies.

Finally, it is evident that organizational variables moderate the relation-ship between instances of direct and bystander ethnic harassment and theirconsequences. Subsequent research that takes into account the organiza-tional context (e.g., permissiveness, tolerance of ethnic harassment) willfurther inform our understanding of ethnic harassment and its consequencesfor individuals and for organizations.

More than just being a mere inconvenience in one’s daily life, witnessing orbearing knowledge of harassing behaviors as a result of ethnicity has adetrimental relationship on one’s psychological, health-related, and occupa-tional well-being. The present research demonstrates that ethnic harassment isnot solely an ethnic minority issue. Instead, acts of harassment based on one’sethnicity are likely to reverberate throughout the organization, regardless ofethnicity, as individuals within that organization come to know of theseincidents directly or indirectly. In that sense, issues of ethnic harassment anddiscrimination are of relevance to all members at all levels of the system.

Negative consequences occur for individuals with no firsthand experienceof ethnicity-based harassment, suggesting that the phenomenon is a problemthat pertains to organizations, and not only to individuals. Ethnic harass-ment and its potent effects on individuals other than the target are difficult todisentangle from their organizational context. The negative outcomes ofethnic harassment diffuse well beyond the focal individual to others in theorganization.

References

Ancis, J. R., & Symanski, D. M. (2001). Awareness of White privilege amongWhite counseling trainees. The Counseling Psychologist, 29, 548–569.

Andersen, J. C., & Gerbing, D. W. (1988). Structural equation modeling inpractice: A review and recommended two-step approach. PsychologicalBulletin, 103, 411–413.

2292 LOW ET AL.

Andrews, B., & Brown, G. W. (1993). Self-esteem and vulnerability todepression: The concurrent validity of interview and questionnaire mea-sures. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 102, 565–572.

Aron, A., Aron, E. N., Tudor, M., & Nelson, G. (1991). Close relationshipsas including other in the self. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,60, 241–253.

Azen, R., & Budescu, D. V. (2003). The dominance analysis approach forcomparing predictors in multiple regression. Psychological Methods, 8,129–148.

Balzer, W. K., Kihm, J. A., Smith, P. C., Irwin, J. L., Bachiochi, P. D.,Robie, C., et al. (1997). Users’ manual for the Job Descriptive Index andthe Job in General scales. Bowling Green, OH: Bowling Green StateUniversity.

Barling, J. (1996). The prediction, psychological experience, and conse-quences of workplace violence. In G. VandenBos & E. G. Bulatao (Eds.),Violence on the job: Identifying risks and developing solutions (pp. 29–49).Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Batson, C. D., Early, S., & Salvarani, G. (1997). Perspective taking: Imag-ining how another feels versus imagining how you would feel. Personalityand Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 751–758.

Bentler, P. M., & Wu, E. J. C. (2002). EQS 6 for Windows user’s guide.Encino, CA: Multivariate Software.

Berton, M. W., & Stabb, S. D. (1996). Exposure to violence and post-traumatic stress disorder in urban adolescents. Adolescence, 31, 489–498.

Bollen, K. A. (1989). Structural equations with latent variables. New York:John Wiley & Sons.

Brief, A. P., & Weiss, H. M. (2002). Organizational behavior: Affect in theworkplace. Annual Review of Psychology, 53, 279–307.

Brodman, K., Erdman, A., Lorge, I., & Wolff, H. (1949). The CornellMedical Index: An adjunct to medical interview. Journal of the AmericanMedical Association, 140, 530–534.

Byrne, B. N. (2001). Structural equation modeling with AMOS. Mahwah, NJ:Lawrence Erlbaum.

Cervantes, R. C. (1992). Organizational and economic stressors among immi-grant and U.S.-born Hispanics. In S. B. Knouse & P. Rosenfield (Eds.),Hispanics in the workplace (pp. 120–133). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Cheung G. W., & Rensvold, R. B. (2002). Evaluating goodness-of-fit indexesfor testing measurement invariance. Structural Equation Modeling, 9,233–255.

Clark, T., Anderson, N., Clark, V., & Williams, D. (1999). Racism as astressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psy-chologist, 54, 805–816.


Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003). Raising voice, risking retaliation:Events following interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace. Journal ofOccupational Health Psychology, 8, 247–265.

Davis, M. H., Conklin, L., Smith, A., & Luce, C. (1996). Effect of perspectivetaking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self andother. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 713–726.

Drasgow, F., & Kanfer, R. (1985). Equivalence of psychological measurementin heterogeneous populations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 70, 662–680.

Figley, C. R. (1995). Compassion fatigue: Coping with secondary traumaticstress disorder in those who treat the traumatized. New York: BrunnerMazel.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J.(1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organiza-tions: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82,578–589.

Fornell, C., & Larcker, V. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation modelswith unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Market-ing Research, 18, 39–50.

Fox, R. J., Crask, M. R., & Kim, J. (1988). Mail survey response rate: Ameta-analysis of selected techniques for inducing response. Public OpinionQuarterly, 52, 467–491.

Friday, S. S., Moss, S. E., & Friday, E. (2004). Socioethnic explanations forracioethnic differences in job satisfaction. Journal of Management Devel-opment, 23, 152–168.

Gerbing, D. W., & Anderson, J. C. (1984). On the meaning of within-factorcorrelated measurement errors. Journal of Consumer Research, 11, 572–580.

Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T.,& Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integratedmodel of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior andHuman Decision Processes, 71, 309–328.

Gutierres, S. E., Saenz, D. S., & Green, B. L. (1994). Job stress and healthoutcomes among White and Hispanic employees: A test of the person–environment fit model. In G. P. Keita & J. J. Hurrell (Eds.), Job stress ina changing workforce (pp. 107–125). Washington, DC: American Psycho-logical Association.

Harrell, J. P., Hall, S., & Taliaferro, J. (2003). Physiological responses toracism and discrimination: An assessment of the evidence. AmericanJournal of Public Health, 93, 243–248.

Harrick, E. J., & Sullivan, G. M. (1995). Ethnic harassment: Case character-istics and employer responsibilities. Employee Responsibilities and RightsJournal, 8, 81–95.

2294 LOW ET AL.

Hekkanen, S. T., & McEvoy, C. L. (2002). False memories and source-monitoring problems: Criterion differences. Applied Cognitive Psychol-ogy, 16, 73–85.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff criterion for fit indexes in covariancestructure analysis: Conventional criteria versus new alternatives. Struc-tural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Janson, G. R., & Hazler, R. J. (2004). Trauma reactions of bystanders andvictims of repetitive abuse experiences. Violence and Victims, 19, 239–255.

Jeanquart-Barone, S., & Sekaran, U. (1996). Institutional racism: An empiri-cal study. Journal of Social Psychology, 136, 477–482.

Jones, D. R., Harrell, J. P., Morris-Prather, C. E., Thomas, J., & Omowale,N. (1996). Affective and physiological responses to racism: The roles ofAfrocentrism and mode of presentation. Ethnicity and Disease, 6, 109–122.

Judd, C. M., Park, B., Ryan, C. S., Brauer, M., & Kraus, S. (1995). Stereo-types and ethnocentrism: Diverging interethnic perceptions of AfricanAmerican and White American youth. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 69, 460–481.

Judge, T. A., & Bretz, R. D. (1993). Report on an alternative measure ofaffective disposition. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 53,1095–1104.

Judge, T. A., Erez, A., & Thoreson, C. J. (2000). Why negative affectivity(and self-deception) should be included in job stress research: Bathing thebaby with the bath water. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 21, 101–111.

Judge, T. A., & Hulin, C. L. (1993). Job satisfaction as a reflection ofdisposition: A multiple source causal analysis. Organizational Behaviorand Human Decision Processes, 56, 388–421.

Krieger, N., & Sidney, S. (1996). Ethnic discrimination and blood pressure:The CARDIA study of young Black and White adults. American Journalof Public Health, 86, 1370–1378.

Krosnick, J. A. (1999). Survey research. Annual Review of Psychology, 50,537–567.

Landrine, H., & Klonoff, E. A. (1996). The Schedule of Racist Events:A measure of ethnic discrimination and a study of its negative physicaland mental health consequences. Journal of Black Psychology, 22, 144–168.

LeBlanc, M. M., & Kelloway, E. K. (2002). Predictors and outcomes ofworkplace violence and aggression. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,444–453.

Marsh, H. W., & Hocevar, D. (1985). The application of confirmatory factoranalysis to the study of self-concept: First- and higher-order factor struc-


tures and their invariance across age groups. Psychological Bulletin, 97,562–582.

Meredith, W. (1993). Measurement invariance, factor analysis, and factorialinvariance. Psychometrika, 58, 525–543.

Miner-Rubino, K., & Cortina, L. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostilitytoward women: Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of Occu-pational Health Psychology, 9, 107–122.

Neuman, J. H., & Baron, R. A. (1998). Workplace violence and workplaceaggression: Evidence concerning specific forms, potential causes, and pre-ferred targets. Journal of Management, 24, 391–419.

Niemann, Y. F., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Relationship of solo status, aca-demic rank, and perceived distinctiveness to job satisfaction of racial/ethnic minorities. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 55–71.

Okazaki, S., & Sue, S. (1995). Methodological issues in assessment researchwith ethnic minorities. Psychological Assessment, 7, 367–375.

Pfefferbaum, B., Seale, T. W., McDonald, N. B., Brandt, E. N., Jr.,Rainwater, S. M., Maynard, B. T., et al. (2000). Posttraumatic stress twoyears after the Oklahoma City bombing in youths geographically distantfrom the explosion. Psychiatry, 63, 358–370.

Rogers, K. A., & Kelloway, E. K. (1997). Violence at work: Personal andorganizational outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12,63–71.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton, NJ:Princeton University Press.

Rosenfeld, P., Newell, C. E., & Le, S. (1998). Equal opportunity climate ofwomen and minorities in the Navy: Results from the Navy EqualOpportunity/Sexual Harassment (NEOSH) Survey. Military Psychology,10, 69–85.

Satorra, A., & Bentler, P. M. (1994). Corrections to test statistics and stan-dard errors in covariance structure analysis. In A. von Eye & C. C. Clogg(Eds.), Latent variables analysis: Applications for developmental research(pp. 285–305). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Schneider, K. T. (1997, May). Employees’ experiences of ethnic harassment,sexual harassment, bystander stress. Paper presented at the annual con-ference of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.

Schneider, K. T., Hitlan, R. T., & Radhakrishnan, P. (2000). An examinationof the nature and correlates of ethnic harassment experiences in multiplecontexts. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 3–12.

Schuster, M. A., Stein, B. D., Jaycox, L. H., Collins, R. L., Marshall, G. N.,Elliot, M. N., et al. (2002). A national survey of stress reactions after theSeptember 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. New England Journal of Medicine,345, 1507–1512.

2296 LOW ET AL.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). The measurement ofsatisfaction in work and retirement. Chicago: Rand-McNally.

Spector, P. E. (1997). Job satisfaction: Application, assessment, causes, andconsequences. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Terr, L. C., Bloch, D. A., Michel, B. A., Shi, H., Reinhardt, J. A., & Metayer,S. A. (1999). Children’s symptoms in the wake of Challenger: A field studyof distant traumatic effects and an outline of related conditions. AmericanJournal of Psychiatry, 156, 1536–1544.

Vandenburg R. J., & Lance, C. E. (2000). A review and synthesis of themeasurement invariance literature: Suggestions, practices, and recom-mendations for organizational research. Organizational ResearchMethods, 3, 4–69.

Van Yperen, N. W., & Snijders, T. A. B. (2000). A multi-level analysis of thedemands-control model: Is stress at work determined by factors at thegroup level or the individual level? Journal of Occupational Health Psy-chology, 5, 182–190.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validationof brief measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063–1070.

Weitz, J. (1952). A neglected concept in the study of job satisfaction. Person-nel Psychology, 5, 201–205.


The experiences of bystanders of workplace ethnic harassment

Documents

Transcript of The experiences of bystanders of workplace ethnic harassment