THE EFFECTS OF A ‘NO JUST JOKING’ POLICY
When denigrating jokes are not accepted at the workplace anymore
Master Thesis MSc, Human Resource Management University of Groningen, Faculty of Economics and Business
June 14th, 2019 Laura Hamstra Student number: S3513440 Annie Westlandstraat 7-3 8923 BC Leeuwarden Tel.: +31 6 15588228 Email: L.Hamstra.1@student.rug.nl
2 THE EFFECTS OF A ‘NO JUST JOKING’ POLICY
When denigrating jokes are not accepted at the workplace anymore
ABSTRACT
This research paper concerns the moderating role of perspective taking on the relation between a ‘no just joking’ policy and the disapproval of denigrating jokes. Harassment, that may be justified by framing it as a joke, in the workplace is a big issue nowadays. Since it is proven that harassment policies help to respond to this behavior, this research examines the ‘no just joking’ policy, which implies that ‘I was just making a joke’ will not be accepted as a valid excuse anymore. It is hypothesized that the ‘no just joking’ policy leads to the disapproval of denigrating jokes, but more so when someone’s level of perspective is high, rather than low. A diverse sample of Americans participated in this study via an online and anonymous experiment. Results showed that there is no evidence to believe that the NJJ policy will lead to the disapproval of denigrating jokes. If any, the NJJ policy seems to have an adverse impact. I did not find evidence to suggest that perspective taking plays a role in the relationship between the NJJ policy and the disapproval of denigrating jokes.
Keywords
3 INTRODUCTION
“It is not like gay people are saints, and that we cannot make jokes about them” (Vogelzang, 2018). This is what Johan Derksen, a former soccer player in the Netherlands, said when he defended the remarks he made regarding a letter from a gay soccer-fan, saying that words like ‘gay’ and ‘faggot’ float around the stadium whenever there is a violation on the field (Quekel, 2018). Derksen, who is now a co-host on a soccer talk show, responded to this letter on national television. He said that homosexuals must learn to take a hit, and have to have some sense of self-mockery. He also felt that someone does not have to be accused of homophobia when he makes a joke about homosexuals. After the broadcast, Twitter exploded (NOS, 2018). Because of all the controversy that arose, Derksen defended his remarks in the next episode of the talk show. However, he did not show any regret (Vogelzang, 2018).
4 diversity strategy is working, even if some qualified men have to miss out” (Sojo & Wood, 2012, p. 20). As this study states, these kinds of remarks are often not recognized as sexism. Humor creates an increased tolerance of a sexist event (Romero-Sánchez, Carretero-Dios, Megías, Moya, & Ford, 2017).
When a target says something about this behavior, the sender often responds with ‘I was just making a joke’. This distracts from the critical aspect of the message: the offensiveness of the remark (D’Errico & Poggi, 2016). If an action can be interpreted as humorous, any criticism can be dismissed on the grounds that ‘it was only a joke’. It was found that men rated sexist events as harmless and acceptable when they perceived the incidents as humorous (Bill & Naus, 1992).
Research suggests that harassment policies may help women and minorities respond to this behavior. A lack of knowledge about the procedures against sexual harassment within an organization may facilitate the harassment (Dekker & Barling, 1998). If we look at sexual harassment for example; women that reported to have knowledge about the procedures against sexual harassment within their organization reported less harassment (O’Hare & O’Donohue, 1998).
The ‘no just joking’ (NJJ) policy is a new policy designed to counteract harassment that comes in the shape of denigrating jokes in the workplace. The NJJ policy implies that ‘I was just making a joke’ will not be accepted as a valid excuse anymore. Since this policy is so new, we do not yet know what its effects will be in practice. Will it indeed change norms about such behavior, and ultimately lead to a more respectful attitude towards women or minorities, or will it lead to resistance? And on what may it depend?
5 taking is associated with better social functioning, and feelings of sympathy, and allows an individual to anticipate the behaviors and reactions of others (Davis, 1983).
Therefore, the present study examines the roles of the NJJ policy and perspective taking on someone’s attitude towards such ‘jokes’. Specifically, this study aims to show that the policy will lead to a more disapproving attitude when someone’s level of perspective taking is higher.
The present research contributes to theory in that it demonstrates the effect of a relatively new policy using survey data of a varied sample of people in a field setting. Where the vast majority of research about harmful workplace experiences focuses on sexual harassment (e.g. physical or aggressive acts of sexual harassment) by men, affecting women; the present research focuses on another, lower and more covert level of harassment (e.g. denigrating jokes, sexual remarks) that affect women and minority groups. This form of harassment is often not recognized as harmful, which is why it is so important to create awareness. Furthermore, this study adds to the literature about moral disengagement, since the NJJ policy counteracts justifications. The NJJ policy sends the message that framing an offensive remark as a joke, and thereby justifying this remark, will not be accepted anymore (Sojo & Wood, 2012).
6 to the target. As one’s level of perspective taking increases with age (Davis, 1983), older people are expected to have a higher level of perspective taking. However, if adults move out of higher education and into family and work roles, their level of perspective taking may no longer develop at the same rate, if it develops at all (Eisenberg, Cumberland, Guthrie, Murphy, & Shepard, 2005). This implies that perspective taking is something that can be developed. So if it turns out that a high level of perspective taking indeed moderates the relationship between the NJJ policy and the disapproval of denigrating jokes, practitioners can decide to train the level of perspective taking of their employees.
THEORY AND HYPOTHESES
The Relationship between the NNJ Policy and Disapproval of Denigrating Jokes
Multiple studies have investigated the effects of policies. Taking sexual harassment as an example again; it seems to be more likely to occur when the norms within the organization permit this kind of behavior (Pryor, La Vite, & Stoller, 1993). Looking at survey data from the Department of Defense, female respondents were asked about their perception of how their management reacts to sexual harassment. The results showed that organizations that are actively concerned about sexual harassment report fewer incidents of it (Pryor et al., 1993).
7 organizations with few or no policies. These findings suggest that women are protected from sexual harassment, and have a wider selection of responses when the workplace is controlled by policies (Gruber & Smith, 1995). Using the same sample as the study of Gruber and Smith, (1995) it turned out that men’s behavior is affected by policies; policies reduce the occurrence of harassing behavior (Gruber, 1998).
Going further into this subject, research showed that when company sanctions towards sexual harassment are perceived as high, the rate of occurrence is always lower than when the sanctions are perceived as low, despite other possible person or workplace variables. This resulted from a study among the male faculty and staff of a university who were asked if they had engaged in harassing behaviors within the last three months (Dekker & Barling, 1998).
A policy sends a message. The NJJ policy is supposed to stimulate the awareness of workers within a company, and how they behave towards each other. It expects that everyone will handle their co-workers with respect, and that ‘I was just making a joke’ is not a valid excuse for denigrating jokes anymore. It counteracts the justifications and trivialization of joking that denigrates women or minorities. Moreover, it legitimizes women and minorities to challenge denigrating remarks without being criticized or accused of a lack of humor (Sojo & Wood, 2012). Contrary to other policies that solely give examples of harassment, describe a complaint procedure, offer protection from revenge, or with just informational methods (Gruber, 1998), the NJJ policy triggers communication between employees, since an intervention would require the perpetrator to apologize to the target, and anyone who hears someone make an offensive remark is expected to point this out. In other words, the policy does not point towards individual behavior, but towards collective behavior. It might change norms about denigrative behavior, and lead a different attitude towards women and minorities.
8 salient in awareness, it is a mistake to focus an audience on what people are doing in an undesirable situation. For example: to show the need for action against smoking among children, the announcement was made that more than three million children smoke nowadays (Scott, 1995). Here, the focus lies on all the people who are engaging in this undesirable behavior. This is called a descriptive norm: it refers to what is commonly been done. Following the Focus Theory of Normative Conduct mentioned earlier (Cialdini et al., 2006), the focus should lie on what is approved or disapproved in a certain situation. This is called an injunctive norm. The NJJ policy also gives an injunctive norm to what is ought to be done. It focusses not on the fact that denigrative behavior is something that many people engage in, but how people should behave at the workplace.
There are several reasons to believe that the NJJ policy has positive effects, which I will explain below.
9 Other reasons for the positive effects of policies are shown by the importance of moral judgments to uphold a certain norm. This can be explained based on the expressive function of the law. The focus of expressive law lies in the ways that the law shapes the social norms of a society, and on the effect of these social norms on the behavior of individuals (Feldman, 2009).
The expressive function of the law. There are four main models regarding expressive law. The first is about the law’s ability to change the behavior of people, not only through legitimizing and sanctioning, but by showing them the focal outcome (McAdams & Nadler, 2005). The expressive function of the law thus has the ability to facilitate coordination (Feldman, 2009). Secondly, the law has the ability to state what is moral: it can cause people to internalize the social values embedded in the law (Cooter, 2000). In addition, the law can alter people’s moral judgments of social behavior (Walker & Argyle, 1964). The third refers to the law’s ability to exact social costs on its violators. The more people adhere to norms, the greater the price for people who do not will be. Finally, the law signals that the majority of people within a community, or in this case an organization, believe in the content of the law. In other words: the law reflects the opinions of the majority in the population (Scott, 2000).
To exemplify: Feldman (2009) conducted a study amongst high-tech participants, where half of them were presented with a scenario describing the behavior a departing employee, as she enters a new firm that requires her to use confidential information from her former employer, followed by a statement pointing out the illegality of this employee’s behavior. For the other half of the participants, this statement was left out of the scenario.
10 (Feldman, 2009). This is contrary to the beliefs of many law and economics of social norms scholars, who argue that the third model, social sanctioning, is the main model that accounts for the expressive effect of the law. The apparent importance of morality suggests that it might be important to associate the law with morality. Furthermore, by creating consensus morality, people’s willingness to uphold the norm could increase (Feldman, 2009).
Hypothesis 1: The ‘no just joking’ policy increases the disapproval of denigrating jokes.
Will the NJJ policy lead to an increase in disapproval in all cases, or does the effect of the policy depend on another variable? As I expect that the NJJ policy functions by means of awareness among employees, it is reasonable to believe that a person’s level of perspective taking plays a role.
The Moderating Role of Perspective Taking
For this study, I used Davis (1983) definition of perspective taking as the cognitive capacity to consider the world from other viewpoints which 'allows an individual to anticipate the behavior and reactions of others'. A linear increase in perspective taking exits from childhood to adulthood, and these advances in perspective taking contribute to the ability to experience sympathy and moral reasoning (Eisenberg et al., 2005). The ability to adopt or be aware of someone else’s perspectives is an important characteristic of successful adult social functioning, and it facilitates smoother and more rewarding interpersonal relationships. Next to that, a higher level of perspective taking is associated with higher self-esteem, positively related to feelings of warmth and sympathy, and negatively related to feelings of personal distress (Davis, 1983). If one can put oneself in the shoes of someone else and imagine how he or she feels, and one’s claim conflicts with someone else’s, one can choose to drop his or her claim (Myyry, Juujärvi, & Pesso, 2010).
11 harassing. They may find it difficult to see their target’s perspective (Pryor, 1987). This study focused on individual differences among men that might contribute to the performance of sexually harassing behavior. Male university undergraduates participated by filling out a questionnaire about their likelihood to sexually harass. Next to that, their level of perspective taking was measured.
Research among college undergraduates used a different approach to examine the effects of perspective taking on sexual harassment (Zimmerman & Myers, 2013). Participants had to read a case about a female plaintiff, who claimed that her male co-worker kept nude pinups in his workspace, repeatedly requested dates, embarrassed her, and sent emails containing references to sex. She claimed that her co-worker continued to engage in this behavior regardless of her requests to stop. Therefore, she filed a formal complaint. The co-worker claimed that he was not made aware of her discomfort, and witnesses claimed that his jokes were harmless and a part of their work environment. Participants were asked to estimate the degree to which the plaintiff experiences several emotions (e.g. vulnerability), and to put themselves into her shoes. Participants in this condition (in contrary to participants who were not asked to take the perspective of the plaintiff) were most likely to find in favor of the plaintiff. Thus, if one has the tendency to take the perspective of others, the likelihood of sexual harassment at the workplace decreases, because if one can adopt the perspective of a harassment victim, one should be able to identify with the feelings of this victim. Perspective taking is also negatively associated with verbal aggression and bragging (Davis, 1983), which may lower people’s intention to make offensive remarks. Since perspective taking is an explanatory variable for differences in judgments in sexual harassment (Pryor, 1987; Zimmerman & Myers, 2013), it might also be an explanatory variable for the judging of denigrating jokes.
12 at the workplace, and that it can hurt the targets. I expect that people high in perspective taking become aware of this due to this policy, and are more able to identify with the feelings of someone else, than people low in perspective taking; and therefore become disapproving towards this kind of behavior.
Research also confirms that perspective taking is an important moderator to explain the effects of policies on harassment. Within a study (Dekker & Barling, 1998) among the male faculty and staff of a university, the interaction between perspective taking and the perception of company sanctions against sexual harassment contributed to the prediction of sexually harassing behavior. The males with a low level of perspective taking took part in sexual harassment more than males with a high level of perspective taking, when the company sanctions are perceived to be low. When the company sanctions were perceived to be higher, these participants engaged in sexual harassment significantly lesser.Note that the policy in this study had did not significantly affect participants high in perspective taking; although they were also engaging in sexual harassment to a lesser extent when the company sanctions are perceived to be high. However, the policy in this case was rather restraining, and the sexual harassment this policy focusses on is of a high level (e.g. touching, suggesting a sexual relationship to help one’s career). I investigate harassment that comes in the shape of jokes, that are easily labeled as innocent, even by people with a high level of perspective taking. Besides, the NJJ policy is less constraining, perhaps causing people with a low level of perspective taking to miss the message. Hence, if someone’s level of perspective taking is high, the NJJ policy may be more likely to change attitudes than if someone’s level of perspective taking is low.
13
Figure 1. Hypothesized Model of Effects of ‘No just joking’ Policy on Disapproval of Denigrating Jokes
METHODOLOGY Participants and Design
To calculate the necessary sample size, I ran a power analysis. My input parameters were: Effect size f = 0.25, α error probability = 0.05, Power = 0.8, Numerator df = 1, and Number of groups = 2. This gave a total required sample size of 128. Using an Effect size f = 0.10, the total required sample size would be 787. I aimed for 80 participants per condition and therefore strived to use a sample size of 240.
The NJJ policy was manipulated by using three conditions: ‘NJJ’, ‘control - no information’, and ‘control – harassment’. I measured the participants’ level of perspective taking and their disapproval of denigrating jokes at the workplace.
To gather experimental data, I distributed a questionnaire on the online platform M-Turk, where 243 people participated. The survey was anonymous and in English. All participants received a compensation of $2. The average duration of the survey was 16.27 minutes.
Participants were 162 Whites, 25 Blacks or African Americans, 24 Asians or Pacific Islanders, 23 Hispanics or Latinos, seven Native Americans or American Indians, and two ‘others’ (Mage = 34.8, SD = 11.0, 56% male). The participants worked in diverse organizations; mostly in retail (13.6%), business (13.2%), manufacturing (11.5%), and other sectors than mentioned in the questionnaire (23.5%) like education, real estate, and media and
‘No just joking’ policy
Disapproval of denigrating jokes Perspective
14 entertainment. Most of the participants are employed full time (82.7%). Few of the participants (4.5%) are either unemployed and looking for work, unemployed and not looking for work, retired, or studying. The majority of participants are either married (39.1%) or single (37.9%). The sexual orientation of most participants is heterosexual (86%).
Procedure
After the informed consent, the survey started with demographic questions. After that, the participants were asked whether they had heard of the term ‘No Just Joking’ policy and whether this policy or a similar one is implemented at the organization where they work. Next, participants’ level of perspective taking was measured, after which the participants were randomly assigned to one of the three conditions, to manipulate the policy. Then, the disapproval of denigrating jokes was measured. Hereafter, some additional questions regarding participants moral disapproval concerning denigrating behavior were posed as well as the level of acceptance and reactance towards the NJJ policy or a similar one. Finally, participants received a short debriefing explaining the purpose of the study to them.
Measures and Manipulations
‘No just joking’ policy manipulation. The NJJ policy was manipulated by varying information about harassment and the NJJ policy. Participants in the ‘NJJ’ condition were presented with information about the NJJ policy and its effects, introduced by information about workplace harassment and its effects; participants in the ‘control – harassment’ condition were provided with only information about workplace harassment; and participants in the ‘control – no information’ condition were not provided with any information about either the NJJ policy or harassment.
More specific, participants in the ‘control - harassment’ condition were provided with the following information: Workplace harassment, that often comes in the shape of a joke, is a
15
Take for example the following anecdote from an Italian restaurant: A boss lectures his staff on the proper cleaning technique for the mini-fridge under the counter. “You have to kneel down to get at the back corners”, he explains. He pauses, pointing to one waitress, "Come on, you know what it’s like to spend plenty of time on your knees”.Workplace harassment is related to several negative outcomes like stress, burnouts, decreased physical health, decreased organizational commitment, and decreased job satisfaction. Making jokes that make fun of someone’s gender, ethnicity or sexual preferences has an impact beyond the woman or minorities who are targeted to those who hear or observe the behavior and can affect their confidence.
Participants in the ‘NJJ policy’ condition were provided with the same information as the condition ‘control - harassment’, and with the following additional information: The ‘no
just joking’ policy is a policy designed to counteract this form of harassment. This policy states that saying “I was just making a joke” will not be accepted as an excuse anymore when making a denigrating or insulting remark to someone at the workplace. This policy is one way of dealing with this form of joking, which is often seen as harmless, and a simple intervention would require the perpetrator to apologize. Many organizations are considering to implement this policy or have already implemented it.
Participants in the condition ‘control - no information’ were not provided with any information.
16 is coded 1, the condition ‘control – no information’ as 0, and the condition ‘control – harassment’ as missing.
Perspective taking. In accordance with prior research (Eisenberg, Cumberland, Guthrie, Murphy, & Shepard, 2005; Myyry et al., 2010), I measured participant’s level of perspective taking using the Interpersonal Reactivity Index from Davis (1980). This scale had been relatively consistent over time (Eisenberg et al., 2002). I asked participants to rate nine statements on a Likert scale from 1 (does not describe me well) to 5 (describes me very well). Sample items included: ‘before criticizing somebody, I try to imagine how I would feel if I were in their place’, ‘if I’m sure I’m right about something, I don’t waste much time listening to other people’s arguments’ (recoded) and ‘I sometimes try to understand my friends better by imagining how things look from their perspective’, α = .69 (.75 if standardized).
Disapproval of denigrating jokes. I presented the participants with nine cases, in which women or minorities are the victims of denigrating joking. Participants were asked how humorous they found the situation (recoded), how offensive they found the behavior, and how much they would disapprove of this person, using a Likert scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (extremely). Next to that, they were asked what their impression is of the person engaging in this behavior, using a Likert scale from 1 (extremely negative) to 7 (extremely positive) (recoded). All four items of all nine cases together were averaged into one sale of disapproval of denigrating cases (α = .96).
17 Acceptance and reactance. To measure participant’s levels of acceptance and reactance towards the NJJ policy or a similar one, participants were asked to imagine that the NJJ policy or a similar policy would be implemented in their organization. More specific, participants in the condition ‘NJJ policy’ received the following information: Organizations may have
different policies to increase diversity and to create an inclusive workplace in which no one feels discriminated against. Earlier we mentioned the ‘no just joking’ policy. This policy states that saying ‘I was just making a joke’ when making a denigrating or insulting remark to someone at the workplace, will not be accepted as an excuse anymore. Imagine that this policy would be implemented in your workplace. What would your opinion be about this policy?
Participants in both the ‘control - no information’ and the ‘control - harassment’ condition, received similar information: Organizations may have different policies to increase
diversity and to create an inclusive workplace in which no one feels discriminated against. Imagine that such a policy would be implemented in your workplace. What would your opinion be about this policy?
After this, all participants had to answer questions about their level of reactance and acceptance towards the policy they had in their minds. Sample items of acceptance included: ‘I would find such a policy necessary’ and ‘I would support such a policy’, and had to be rated on a Likert scale from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree), α = .91. Sample items of reactance included: ‘this policy is pointless’, ‘this policy is meant for other employees, not me’, and ‘this policy irritates me’, and had to be rated using the same scale, α = .96.
18 ‘persons engaging in joking about minority groups should be disciplined by the organization’ and ‘joking about minority members is discriminatory behavior’, α = .87.
Control variables. I considered participants gender, age, ethnicity, sexual orientation, and whether or not they are familiar with the NJJ policy as control variables. Regarding gender, previous research (Ford, Boxer, Armstrong, & Edel, 2008) found that men rate sexist events as acceptable and harmless when they perceived it as humorous, and another study (Bill & Naus, 1992) suggested that gender may potentially account for individual differences in the interpretation of sexist humor. Looking at controlling for age, there is considerable evidence that moral reasoning becomes more mature with age (Eisenberg & Fabes, 1998).
RESULTS Assumptions
On the dependent variables disapproval of denigrating jokes, and the rating of sexual, racist, and gay jokes, there are no outliers (+3SD or -3SD). Both variables do not have any missing variables.
The data of disapproval of denigrating jokes and the rating of sexual, racist, and gay jokes both appeared to be non-normally distributed (respectively skewed to the right; W = .94,
p <.001; and skewed to the left; W = .94, p <.001). However, since the kurtosis (respectively
-1.29, SE = .31; and -.87, SE = .31), and skewness (respectively -.15, SE = .16; and .34, SE = .16), are within the acceptable limits, and the regression is robust against small deviations of normality, we can assume that our data is normally distributed and we do not transform our data (Carroll & Welsh, 1988).
Preliminary Analysis
19 that is, that the ‘No Just Joking’ policy is associated with increased disapproval of denigrating jokes. However, when not looking at the manipulation, but whether or not the NJJ policy is implemented in the organization, a significant negative correlation exists with the disapproval of denigrating cases (r = -.47, p < .001), and a significant positive correlation with the rating of sexual/gay/racist jokes (r = .51, p < .001). This is the opposite of the initial hypothesis.
20 TABLE 1
Descriptive Statistics and Intercorrelations
Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 1. Age 34.77 11.02 1 2. Gender1 .44 .550 .02 1 3. Ethnicity2 .67 .47 .33** .04 1 4. Sexual orientation3 .86 .35 .08 -.04 .19** 1 5. Familiar with NJJ4 .25 .43 -.20** -.06 -.26** -.32** 1 6. NJJ implemented in org.5 .43 .50 -.21* .06 -.32** -.11 .56** 1 7. ‘NJJ (vs. control - no information)’6 .50 .50 -.02 .04 -.01 .17* -.11 .08 1 8. ‘NJJ (vs. control-harassment)’7 .46 .50 -.03 .04 .02 .11 -.02 .12 x 1 9. Perspective Taking 3.57 .59 .10 .05 .01 .12 -.02 -.17 -.10 -.09 1 10. Disapproval of Denigrating Cases 5.34 1.15 .32** .08 .20** .08 -.36** -.47** .08 .05 .12 1
11. Rating of sexual/ racist/gay jokes 2.50 .75 -.29** -.07 -.28** -.10 .31** .51** -.13 -.05 -.07 -.71** 1
12. Moral disapproval 5.18 1.14 .25** .06 .02 .02 -.23** -.41** .08 .09 .16* .71** -.66** 1
13. Acceptance 5.34 1.40 .07 .16* -.17** -.08 .06 .07 .03 .08 .15* .49** .30** -.22** 1
14. Reactance 3.07 1.57 -.21** -.14* -.18** -.14* .36** .52** -.07 .02 -.12 -.62** -.66** .59** -.49** 1 Notes. N = ranges from 98 to 243. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
1
0 = male, 1 = female;
2
0 = ethnical minority, 1 = whites;
21 The dependent variable disapproval of denigrating cases correlated positively with the control variable age (r = .32, p < .001), and negatively with the control variables familiarity with the NJJ (r = .36, p < .001), and whether the NJJ is implemented in the organization (r = -.47, p < .001). Also, the dependent variable rating of sexual/racist/gay jokes correlated negatively with age (r = -.29, p < .001), and positively with familiarity with the NJJ (r = .31, p < .001) and whether the NJJ is implemented in the organization (r = .51, p < .001).
Main Analysis
Tables 2 and 3 depict the results of a moderated hierarchical regression analysis (using standardized predictor variables) used to test my predictions. To test hypothesis 1 and 2, I conducted a regression analysis using PROCESS (Hayes, 2017) where disapproval of denigrating cases was the dependent variable, ‘NJJ (vs. control - no information)’ (Table 2A) and ‘NJJ (vs. control - harassment)’ (Table 2B) the independent variables, and perspective taking the moderator. There was no significant two-way interaction between ‘NJJ (vs. control - no information)’ and perspective taking on the disapproval of denigrating cases (B = -.12, SE = .08, p = .15), and no significant two way interaction between ‘NJJ (vs. control-harassment)’ and perspective taking (B = -.04, SE = .08, p = .67).
TABLE 2 A
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction on Disapproval of Denigrative Cases
Variables B (SE) t p Age .02** (.01) 3.07 .00 Ethnicity .01 (.20) .05 .96 Familiar with NJJ -.81** (.21) -3.93 .00 Perspective Taking .12 (.09) 1.39 .17 NJJ (vs. control – no information) .07 (.09) .80 .43 NJJ (vs. control – no information) × Perspective Taking -.12 (.09) -1.45 .15
22 TABLE 2 B
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction on Disapproval of Denigrative Cases
Variables B (SE) t p Age .02* (.01) 2.46 .01 Ethnicity .20 (.19) 1.10 .27 Familiar with NJJ -.87** (.21) -4.24 .00 Perspective Taking .05 (.08) .60 .55 NJJ (vs. control – harassment) .05 (.08) .63 .53 NJJ (vs. control – harassment) × Perspective Taking -.04 (.08) -.50 .62
Notes. N = 165. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Table 3 shows the outcomes of the same regression analysis, but now with the ratings of sexual/gay/racist jokes as the dependent variable. There was no significant two-way interaction between ‘NJJ (vs. control - no information)’ and perspective taking on the ratings of sexual/gay/racist jokes (B = .04, SE = .09, p = .61) (Table 3A). Likewise, there was no significant two way interaction between ‘NJJ (vs. control-harassment)’ and perspective taking (B = -.06, SE = .08, p = .48) (Table 3B). This means that there is no evidence to support hypothesis 2.
TABLE 3 A
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction on the Ratings of Sexual/gay/racist Jokes
Variables B (SE) t p Age -.01 (.01) -1.55 .12 Ethnicity -.53** (.21) -2.56 .01 Familiar with NJJ .64** (.21) 3.01 .00 Perspective Taking -.13 (.09) -1.43 .15 NJJ (vs. control – no information) -.14 (.09) -1.59 .11 NJJ (vs. control – no information) × Perspective Taking .05 (.09) .54 .59
23 TABLE 3 B
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction on the Ratings of Sexual/gay/racist Jokes
Variables B (SE) t p Age -.02* (.01) -2.25 .03 Ethnicity -.36* (.18) -1.96 .05 Familiar with NJJ .50** (.20) 2.48 .01 Perspective Taking -.01 (.08) -.15 .88 NJJ (vs. control – harassment) -.06 (.08) -.72 .47 NJJ (vs. control – harassment) × Perspective Taking -.05 (.08) -.64 .52
Notes. N = 165. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Next, I tested the hypothesis using the variables familiarity with NJJ, and whether or not the NJJ is implemented in the organization, instead of the manipulation. Again, there are no significant two-way interactions between familiar with NJJ and perspective taking on the disapproval of denigrating cases (B = .06, SE = .08, p = .51) (Table 4A) and on the rating of sexual/gay/racist jokes (B = -.11, SE = .09, p = .21) (Table 4B). There are also no significant two-way interactions between ‘NJJ implemented in org.’ and perspective taking on the disapproval of denigrating cases (B = -.14, SE = .16, p = .40) (Table 5A), and on the ratings of sexual/gay/racist jokes (B = .12, SE = .16, p = .46) (Table 5B). Thus this way, I also found no evidence to support hypothesis 2.
TABLE 4 A
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction on Disapproval of Denigrative Cases
Variables B (SE) t p
Age .02** (.01) 3.73 .00
Ethnicity .11 (.15) .70 .48
Perspective Taking .12+ (.07) 1.64 .10
Familiar with NJJ -.34** (.07) -4.97 .00
Familiar with NJJ × Perspective Taking .05 (.08) .64 .53
24 TABLE 4 B
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction on the rating of Sexual/gay/racist jokes
Variables B (SE) t p
Age -.02** (.01) -2.92 .00
Ethnicity -.38* (.15) -2.47 .01
Perspective Taking -.08 (.07) -1.11 .27
Familiar with NJJ .25** (.07) 3.63 .00
Familiar with NJJ × Perspective Taking -.11 (.09) -1.25 .21
Notes. N = 243. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
TABLE 5 A
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction on Disapproval of Denigrative Cases
Variables B (SE) t p
Age .02* (.01) 2.04 .04
Ethnicity .20 (.22) .89 .37
Perspective Taking -.04 (.15) -.28 .78
NJJ implemented in org. -.47** (.11) -4.26 .00 NJJ implemented in org. × Perspective Taking -.14 (.16) -.84 .40
Notes. N = 98. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
TABLE 5 B
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction on the rating of Sexual/gay/racist jokes
Variables B (SE) t p
Age -.005 (.01) -.45 .66
Ethnicity -.44+ (.23) -1.91 .06
Perspective Taking .05 (.15) .29 .77
NJJ implemented in org. .54** (.11) 4.80 .00
NJJ implemented in org. × Perspective Taking .12 (.16) .75 .46
Notes. N = 98. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
Tests of Alternative Models
25 models, I incorporated acceptance, reactance, and moral disapproval in the correlation analysis as possible dependent variables. It appeared that acceptance is positively correlated with gender (r = .13, p = .04), and negatively with ethnicity (r = -.17, p = .01). So, females and ethnic minorities are more accepting of the NJJ policy, or a similar policy. Reactance is negatively correlated with gender (r = -.14, p = .03), age (r = -.21, p = .001), ethnicity (r = -.18, p = .004), and sexual orientation (r = -.14, p = .03). So, young; non-white; non-hetero males are more reactant against the NJJ policy or a similar policy. Notably, both acceptance and reactance correlate negatively with ethnicity, so these variables might not be entirely opposing each other. It also appeared that participants in the condition ‘NJJ’; who received information specifically about the NJJ policy (M = 3.02, SD = 1.64), were as reactive against the policy as the participants in both the conditions ‘control – harassment’ and ‘control – no information’; who only received information about a general policy (M = 3.10, SD = 1.54). The difference was not significant (t (241) = .38, p = .56).
Moral disapproval correlated positively with age (r = .25, p < .001), and negatively with familiarity with the NJJ (r = -.23, p < .001), and whether the NJJ is implemented in the organization (r = -.41, p < .001). When performing the regression analysis using PROCESS (Hayes, 2017) with ‘NJJ (vs. control – no information)’ as independent variable, perspective taking as moderator, and moral disapproval as dependent variable, the interaction effect appeared to be marginally significant (B = -.16, SE = .09, p = .10), as seen in Table 6. However, when taking ‘NJJ (vs. control – harassment)’ as independent variable, the interaction effect is not significant (B = -.06, SE = .09, p = .54).
TABLE 6
Regression Results for Two-way Interaction on Moral Disapproval
Variables B (SE) t p
Age .02** (.01) 2.54 .01
26
Perspective Taking .19* (.10) 1.99 .05
NJJ (vs. control – no information) .10 (.09) 1.00 .32 NJJ (vs. control – no information) × Perspective Taking -.17+ (.10) -1.74 .08
Notes. N = 154. +p < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.
So, when the level of perspective taking increases, the presence of the NJJ policy has a smaller effect on the level of moral disapproval and vice versa: when the NJJ policy is present, the level of perspective taking has a smaller effect on the level of moral disapproval. I included the graphical representation of the two-way interaction between NJJ (vs. control – harassment) and perspective taking on moral disapproval in Figure 2, since a marginally significant simple slope exists among individuals with a low level perspective taking (-1SD; B = .26, SE = .13, p = .06). This suggests that participants with a low level of perspective taking have a higher level of moral disapproval when the NJJ policy is present rather than when it is not. In other words, the NJJ policy is associated with increased moral disapproval when one’s level of perspective taking is low. This is contrary to the expectations when taking into account the original dependent variables, namely that the NJJ policy is only associated with increased moral disapproval when perspective taking is high. There is no significant effect when participants have a high level of perspective taking (+1SD; B = -.07, SE = .13, p = .58).
Figure 2: Two-way interaction of ‘NJJ (vs. control – no information)’ and perspective taking predicting moral disapproval
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Low NJJ (vs. Control - no information) High NJJ (vs. Control - no information) Mor al D isapproval
27 DISCUSSION
The present research examined the roles of the NJJ policy and perspective taking on the disapproval of denigrating jokes. The data showed no effects between the independent variables concerning the ‘NJJ’ condition contrasted with the ‘control – harassment’ condition, and the ‘NJJ’ condition contrasted with the ‘control – no information’ condition and the dependent variables disapproval of denigrating cases and the rating of sexual/gay/racist jokes. This means that there is no evidence to support hypothesis 1. A possible explanation is that the manipulation did not work, or because the NJJ policy has had no effect in this particular sample. When taking a closer look at the sample, it appears that from the 24.7% of participants that know what the NJJ policy is, 40% of them were randomly placed in the condition that did not receive any information about the NJJ policy or harassment at all. So for them, the manipulation might not have worked since they already knew what the NJJ policy is about. Another explanation could be that the cases which participants were presented with were too offensive so that all participants were disapproving of them, regardless of whether they were presented with information about the NJJ policy or not. The data indeed shows that each of the conditions has the same mean score when rating their level of disapproval towards the denigrating cases1.
When substituting the manipulation for being familiar with the NJJ policy and whether the NJJ policy is implemented in the organization, the data does show a statistically significant negative effect on the disapproval of denigrating cases and a positive effect on the rating of sexual/gay/racist jokes. Contrary to my initial hypothesis, the NJJ policy seems to have an adverse impact than its intention: when participants are familiar with the NJJ policy, or when the NJJ policy is implemented in participant’s organization, they tend to be more tolerant with respect to denigrative jokes. One interpretation of this effect is that the NJJ policy may lead to psychological reactance. Research has shown that people can place greater value on the
1 For the ‘NJJ’ condition, M = 5.4, SD = 1.1, with a minimum of 3.3. For the ‘control – harassment’ condition, M = 5.3, SD =
28 behavioral options that the policy aims to restrict (Laurin et al., 2013). A prohibition of the freedom to engage in a certain behavior creates a motivational state within individuals, directed towards the restoration of this prohibited freedom (Brehm, Stires, Sensenig, & Shaban, 1966). To give an example: the public health measures that limit people’s smoking options can backfire and result in increased smoking (Wiium, Aarø, & Hetland, 2009). As Laurin et al. (2013) found in their study, reactance towards a policy is more likely to occur when people are cued to consciously attend to the restrictive nature of the policy, and when they have sufficient cognitive resources (e.g. when there is no attentional distraction). The first is the case with the NJJ policy, which is directed at the elimination of certain behavior.
Another explanation for the negative relation between the NJJ policy and disapproval of denigrating jokes can be seen when looking at it the other way around: in environments where people tend to be tolerant towards denigrative joking, an NJJ policy is needed to counteract this behavior. So, the NJJ policy is implemented in organizations where it was most needed since the disapproval of denigrative jokes is low. Confirming this effect, participants who are familiar with the NJJ policy experienced more discriminatory behavior targeting themselves than participants who are not familiar with the NJJ policy2.
Other effects of the NJJ policy on the alternative dependent variables acceptance and reactance showed that for this sample, females and ethnic minorities are more accepting of the NJJ policy or a similar policy; and young, non-white, non-hetero males are more reactive. Being familiar with the NJJ policy and having it implemented in the organization both have a positive effect on participants’ level of reactance. Apparently, the NJJ policy has a negative image among this sample.
2 Participants who are familiar with the NJJ (M = 4.36, SD = 1.73) experienced more discriminatory behavior towards
29 I did not find any evidence to suggest that the effect of the NJJ policy on the disapproval of denigrative jokes increased when the level of perspective taking increases, meaning that there is no support for hypothesis 2. The interaction of both the ‘NJJ’ condition contrasted with the ‘control – harassment’ condition with perspective taking and the ‘NJJ’ condition contrasted with the ‘control – no information’ condition with perspective taking showed no effect on the disapproval of denigrating cases as well as the rating of sexual/gay/racist jokes. Also, the interaction of whether the NJJ policy is implemented and perspective taking on the disapproval of denigrating cases and the rating of sexual/gay/racist jokes did not show any effects. This could mean that perspective taking might not be a good moderator for this specific policy or this level of harassment. The data did however show a marginally significant negative interaction effect of the ‘NJJ’ condition contrasted with the ‘control – no information’ condition and perspective taking on moral disapproval, the dependent variable that goes hand in hand with the disapproval of denigrating cases and the rating of sexual/gay/racist jokes. When one has a lower level of perspective taking, the presence of the NJJ policy has a greater effect on that person’s level of moral disapproval than when someone has a high level of perspective taking. This is contrary to my expectations, but it confirms findings of Dekker and Barling (1998); namely that a policy has an effect on people with a lower level of perspective taking and not so on people high in perspective taking, who already have a lower frequency of sexual harassing behavior.
30 Theoretical Implications
This research contributes to the current literature by doing explorative research about the effects of a completely new policy in an organizational field setting. The present study gives information about the effects of the NJJ policy, which have never been studied before. Additionally, this study uses experimental data regarding a policy, something that has not been done often before. Most studies focus on companies that have formal policies already (e.g. Gruber, 1998; Gruber & Smith, 1995; Hertzog, Wright, & Beat, 2008; O’Hare & O’Donohue, 1998). These studies investigate the effects of several different policies that exist within several different organizations, whereas the focus of the present study lies in one specific policy.
Another contribution to existing theory is that organizations where harassment occurs, apparently have implemented the NJJ policy. Meaning that organizations believe in the positive effects the policy is said to have.
Practical Implications
The present study does not give any evidence that the NJJ policy leads to the disapproval of denigrating jokes. Therefore, I cannot give the advice to either implement or not implement the NJJ policy in organizations. What the data did show is that the presence of the NJJ policy leads to a higher level of moral disapproval among people low in perspective taking. For this group of employees, the NJJ policy can serve as a discouragement to engage in denigrative behavior. People with a high level of perspective taking are less likely to engage in offensive behaviors regardless (Dekker & Barling, 1998). Organizations can therefore also choose to develop the level of perspective taking of their employees.
31 one. It is important to educate this group of employees about the harm that can be done when making offensive remarks to others; and that it is therefore necessary to implement such a policy. I advise organizations to create a diverse work environment, or diverse teams, in which the amount of men does not overrule the amount of women.
Limitations and Future Research
This study is not without limitations. As mentioned before, the manipulation in this research might not have worked to its full extent, presumably because almost half of the participants in the condition that received no information about the NJJ policy – and were thus expected to not know what it is about – were actually already familiar with the NJJ policy. For future research, I would recommend redoing this research, but among participants who are unfamiliar with the NJJ policy. Besides, to really measure the effects of the NJJ policy, I should have done a longitudinal study. This way, I could have explored how one’s disapproval towards denigrating jokes develops overtime while being aware of the NJJ policy.
An even more important limitation is that this study concerns a scenario. Doing a scenario-study has some conceptual boundaries (Hughes & Huby, 2004). The actual presence of the NJJ policy was not really manipulated. Therefore, the participants could have perceived this study as artificial, and they might not have responded as they normally would. The extent to which scenario-studies tap into real-life processes it limited (Hughes & Huby, 2004). The presented scenario might have been too hypothetical for participants to really imagine themselves being in a situation where the NJJ policy is present. As a consequence, the results of this research would only be valid on a fictional basis.
32 cultural influences on one’s moral values (Graham, Meindl, Beall, Johnson, & Zhang, 2016). That being the case, future research could test this model and take into account different cultures and religions.
At last, the current sample can be generalized to Americans, looking at the origins and gender of the participants (U.S. Census Bureau, 2018). However, 4.5% of the participants are unemployed, retired, or studying. Since everyone had to imagine that the NJJ or a similar policy was being implemented in their organization, it might have been difficult for them, as they are currently not working. In the future, I would recommend conducting this research only among participants who have a job.
CONCLUSION
33 REFERENCES
Bill, B., & Naus, P. (1992). The Role of Humor in the Interpretation of Sexist Incidents. Sex
Roles, 27(11/12), 645–664. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02651095
Bowling, N. A., & Beehr, T. A. (2006). Workplace harassment from the Victim’s perspective: A theoretical model and meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91(5), 998–1012. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.5.998
Brehm, J. W., Stires, L. K., Sensenig, J., & Shaban, J. (1966). The attractiveness of an eliminated choice alternative. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1031(66)90086-2
Carroll, R. J., & Welsh, A. H. (1988). A Note on Asymmetry and Robustness in Linear Regression. The American Statistician, 42(4), 285–287.
Cialdini, R. B., Demaine, L. J., Sagarin, B. J., Barrett, D. W., Rhoads, K., & Winter, P. L. (2006). Managing social norms for persuasive impact. Social Influence, 1(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.1080/15534510500181459
Cooter, R. (2000). Do Good Laws Make Good Citizens? An Economic Analysis of Internalizing Legal Values. Va. L. Rev., 86, 1577.
D’Errico, F., & Poggi, I. (2016). “The bitter laughter”. when parody is a moral and affective priming in political persuasion. Frontiers in Psychology, 7, 1–14.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2016.01144
Davis, M. H. (1980). A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS
Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, (10), 85.
Davis, M. H. (1983). Measuring Individual Differences in Empathy: Evidence for a
Multidimensional Approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44(1), 113– 126. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.44.1.113
34 https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.1.7
Eisenberg, N., Cumberland, A., Guthrie, I. K., Murphy, B. C., & Shepard, S. A. (2005). Age changes in prosocial responding and moral reasoning in adolescence and early
adulthood. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 15(3), 235–260. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1532-7795.2005.00095.x
Eisenberg, N., & Fabes, R. A. (1998). Prosocial development. In W. Damon (Series Ed.) & N. Eisenberg (Vol. Ed.), Handbook of child psychology: Vol. 3. Social, emotional, and personality development (5th ed., pp. 701–778). New York: Wiley
Eisenberg, N., Guthrie, I. K., Cumberland, A., Murphy, B. C., Shepard, S. A., Zhou, Q., & Carlo, G. (2002). Prosocial development in early adulthood: A longitudinal study.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 993–1006.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.6.993
Feldman, Y. (2009). The Expressive Function of Trade Secret Law: Legality, Cost, Intrinsic Motivation, and Consensus. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 6(1), 177–212.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.912989
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., …
Weitzman, L. (1988). The Incidence and Dimensions of Sexual Harassment in Academia and the Workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32(2), 152–175.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/0001-8791(88)90012-7
Ford, T. E., Boxer, C. F., Armstrong, J., & Edel, J. R. (2008). More Than “‘Just a Joke’” The Prejudice-Releasing Function of Sexist Humor. Personality and Social Psychology
Bulletin, 34(2), 159–170. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167207310022
Graham, J., Meindl, P., Beall, E., Johnson, K. M., & Zhang, L. (2016). Cultural differences in moral judgment and behavior, across and within societies. Current Opinion in
35 Gruber, J. E. (1998). The Impact of Male Work Environments and Organizational Policies on
Women’s Experiences of Sexual Harassment. Gender and Society, 12(3), 301–320. https://doi.org/10.1177/0891243298012003004
Gruber, J. E., & Smith, M. D. (1995). Women’s Responses to Sexual Harassment: A Multivariate Analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(4), 543–562. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1704_7
Gutek, B. A. (1981). Experiences of Sexual Harassment: Results from a Representative Survey. Paper Presented at the 89th Annual Convention of the American Psychological
Association, Los Angeles, August. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-2736(82)90218-8
Hertzog, J. L., Wright, D., & Beat, D. (2008). There’s a policy for that: A comparison of the organizational culture of workplaces reporting incidents of sexual harassment. Behavior
and Social Issues, 17(2), 169–181. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.5210/bsi.v17i2.2175
Hughes, R., & Huby, M. (2004). The construction and interpretation of vignettes in social research. Social Work & Social Sciences Review, 11(1), 36–51.
https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.1921/17466105.11.1.36
Jost, J. T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and Consequences of System-Justifying Ideologies. American Psychological Society, 14(5), 260–265.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1111/j.0963-7214.2005.00377.x
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderation, and conditional process analysis: A regression-based approach. Guilford Publications.
Kay, A. C., Gaucher, D., Napier, J. L., Callan, M. J., & Laurin, K. (2008). God and the Government: Testing a Compensatory Control Mechanism for the Support of External Systems. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 95(1), 18–35.
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.18
36 policies: Reconciling system justification and psychological reactance. Organizational
Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 122, 152–162.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.obhdp.2013.06.004
McAdams, R. H., & Nadler, J. (2005). Testing the Focal Point Theory of Legal Compliance: The Effect of Third-Party Expression in an Experimental Hawk/Dove Game. Journal of
Empirical Legal Studies, 2(1), 87–123.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1740-1461.2005.00032.x
Myyry, L., Juujärvi, S., & Pesso, K. (2010). Empathy, perspective taking and personal values as predictors of moral schemas. Journal of Moral Education, 39(2), 213–233.
https://doi.org/10.1080/03057241003754955
NOS. (2018). “#SorryJohan, waarom zou je 20 jaar in de kast zitten als het makkelijk was?” | NOS. Retrieved December 15, 2018, from https://nos.nl/artikel/2261343-sorryjohan-waarom-zou-je-20-jaar-in-de-kast-zitten-als-het-makkelijk-was.html
O’Hare, E. A., & O’Donohue, W. (1998). Sexual Harassment: Identifying Risk Factors.
Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27(6), 561–580.
Piotrkowski, C. S. (1998). Gender harassment, job satisfaction, and distress among employed white and minority women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3(1), 33–43. https://doi.org/10.1037/1076-8998.3.1.33
Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual Harassment Proclivities in Men. Sex Roles, 17(5), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288453
Pryor, J. B., La Vite, C. M., & Stoller, L. M. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42(1), 68– 83. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1005
https://www.ad.nl/show/homoseksuele-voetbalfans-boos-op-johan-37 derksen~af832712/
Romero-Sánchez, M., Carretero-Dios, H., Megías, J. L., Moya, M., & Ford, T. E. (2017). Sexist Humor and Rape Proclivity: The Moderating Role of Joke Teller Gender and Severity of Sexual Assault. Violence Against Women, 23(8), 951–972.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1077801216654017
Scott, W. (1995). Personality parade. Parade Magazine, December 24, p. 2.
Scott, R. E. (2000). The Limits of Behavioral Theories of Law and Social Norms. Virginia
Law Review, 86(8), 1603–1647. https://doi.org/http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.241037
Sojo, V., & Wood, R. (2012). Resilience: Women’s fit, functioning and growth at work: Indicators and predictors. Journal of Management Inquiry, 26(1), 108–111.
https://doi.org/10.1177/1056492616664853
Sojo, V., Wood, R., & Genat, A. (2016). Harmful Workplace Experiences and Women’s Occupational Well-Being: A Meta-Analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 10–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315599346
U.S. Census Bureau. (2018). U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: United States. Retrieved June 6, 2019, from https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045218
Vogelzang, L. (2018). Johan Derksen heeft geen spijt van uitspraken. Retrieved December 15, 2018, from https://www.telegraaf.nl/entertainment/2836577/johan-derksen-heeft-geen-spijt-van-uitspraken?utm_source=google&utm_medium=organic
Walker, N., & Argyle, M. (1964). Does the law affect moral judgments? The British Journal
of Criminology, 4(6), 570–581.
https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.bjc.a048782
Wiium, N., Aarø, L. E., & Hetland, J. (2009). Subjective attractiveness and perceived trendiness in smoking and snus use: a study among young Norwegians. Health
