How Organizational Responses to Sexual Harassment Claims Shape Public Perception

Figures & data

Table 1. Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations Study 1 and Study 2.

Study/Variable	M	SD	1	2
Study 1
1. Experimental condition^a	—	—
2. Perceived gender equality	4.01	1.77	−.70
3. Organizational attractiveness	3.54	1.70	−.59	.78
Study 2
1. Experimental condition^b	—	—
2. Organizational attractiveness	4.03	2.05	−.75

Note. ^aExperimental condition is coded as 1 = sexual harassment and 0 = control. ^bExperimental condition is coded as 1 = gender equality and 0 = gender inequality.

Figure 1. Unstandardized coefficients for the indirect relationship between sexual harassment and organizational attractiveness through perceived gender equality in Study 1. Note: The effect of condition on attractiveness without the inclusion of the mediator is in parentheses.

Table 2. Means, standard deviations and inter-correlations Study 3 and Study 4.

Study/Variable	M	SD	1	2	3	4	5
Study 3
1. SH^a No response information	—	—
2. SH Organizational minimization	—	—	—
3. SH Organizational responsiveness	—	—	—	—
4. Perceived gender equality	3.65	1.68	−.15	−.52	.30
5. Organizational attractiveness	3.50	1.60	−.03	.48	.18	.66
6. Perceived commitment to due process	4.32	2.06	.01	−.75	.47	.76	.65
Study 4
1. SH^a No response information	—	—
2. SH Organizational minimization	—	—	—
3. SH Organizational responsiveness	—	—	—	—
4. Perceived commitment to due process	4.39	2.02	.01	−.66	.42
5. Generalized public trust	4.00	1.54	−.05	−.56	.31	.85
6. Anticipated organizational resilience to future financial crisis	4.62	1.51	−.01	−.51	.26	.77	.79

Note. ^aSexual harassment. SH No response, SH Organizational Minimization and SH Organizational Responsiveness represent focal dummy-coded experimental conditions. The condition with no mention of sexual harassment is the reference group.

Figure 2. Means and standard errors per condition in Study 3.

Figure 3. Unstandardized coefficients for the indirect relationship between sexual harassment and organizational attractiveness through perceived commitment to fair process handling and perceived gender equality in Study 3. Note: The predictor is dummy-coded with the condition with no mention of sexual harassment as the reference group. The coefficients are presented for the focal dummy. The effect of the predictor on attractiveness without the inclusion of the mediator is in parentheses.

Table 3. Regression results for moderations by SDO in Study 3.

	DV	Simple Slopes		DV	Simple Slopes		DV	Simple Slopes
	Perceived gender equality	Low SDO b (SE)	High SDO b (SE)	Organizational attractiveness	Low SDO b (SE)	High SDO b (SE)	Perceived commitment to due process	Low SDO b (SE)	High SDO b (SE)
No response information	−1.63 (.17)			−.1.07 (.17)			−1.01 (.16)
Organizational minimization	−2.65 (.16)			−2.24 (.17)			−3.66 (.16)
Organizational responsiveness	−0.32 (.16)			−0.46 (.17)			0.56 (.16)
SDO	0.09 (.11)			−0.11 (.11)			0.04 (.10)
No response x SDO	0.36 (.15)	−1.94 (.21)	−1.24 (.23)	0.57 (.15)	−1.57 (.22)	−0.46 (.24)	0.04 (.14)
Organizational minimization x SDO	0.40 (.15)	−3.00 (.21)	−2.22 (.24)	0.54 (.16)	−2.71 (.22)	−1.66 (.25)	0.45 (.15)	−1.05 (.20)	−3.17 (.22)
Organizational responsiveness x SDO	0.21 (.16)			0.07 (.16)			−0.32* (.15)	0.85 (.20)	0.22 (.23)

Note. SDO: mean-centered Social Dominance Orientation.

Figure 4. Means and standard errors per condition in Study 4.

Figure 5. Unstandardized coefficients for the indirect relationship between sexual harassment and generalized public trust through perceived commitment to due process in Study 4. Note: The effect of condition on outcomes without the inclusion of the mediator is in parentheses.

Figure 6. Unstandardized coefficients for the indirect relationship between sexual harassment and anticipated organizational resilience through perceived commitment to due process in Study 4. Note: The effect of condition on outcomes without the inclusion of the mediator is in parentheses.