Sexual harassment bystander training effectiveness: Experimentally comparing 2D video to virtual reality practice.

Abstract

Sexual harassment (hereafter SH) is a dysfunctional workplace behavior, resulting in negative outcomes for individuals, work groups, and organizations. Since #MeToo, companies have been innovating to increase the effectiveness of SH training by incorporating new content (e.g., bystander intervention skills) and new technology (e.g., virtual reality, hereafter VR). However, research has yet to determine the best practices or the effectiveness of these new innovations. The present study hypothesizes that SH bystander intervention training will be more effective when VR practice scenarios are used rather than two-dimensional (2D) video practice scenarios. We argue that the increased presence (i.e., the perception that people and places in a virtual simulation are real) afforded by VR should better replicate bystander experiences in real SH situations, thereby allowing trainees to develop bystander skills in a more realistic practice experience than 2D video provides. We experimentally test our hypothesis in a laboratory setting (N = 100). Our results show that the VR practice condition differed from the 2D video condition by increasing trainees' intentions to engage in indirect, nonconfrontational, and widely applicable interventions (e.g., intervene by removing the target from the situation, approach the target to offer support later). However, our manipulation showed a negative effect on practice quantity (i.e., those in the VR condition explored fewer response options) and no effect on other operationalizations of training effectiveness (e.g., motivation to learn, knowledge, attitudes toward the training, intentions to directly confront the harasser, and intentions to formally report the harassment). Implications, limitations, and directions for future research are discussed.

Which effective virtual reality (VR) interventions exist for the prevention and rehabilitation of intimate partner violence (IPV)?

“…Regarding male or female non-clinical participants (i.e., community, no previous experience in IPV), gender differences were not analyzed in either of the studies (De Borst et al, 2020;Rawski et al, 2022). However, in De Borst et al (2020), it is stated that it could be interesting to investigate whether for female participants it is easier to place themselves in the victims' shoes than for the male participants.…”

“…In terms of the type of intervention, seven studies focused on prevention, and five studies focused on rehabilitation. While most prevention studies focused on increasing assertiveness skills and empathy to prevent being the victim or the offender of IPV or sexual harassment (Ventura et al, 2021;Rowe et al, 2015;De Borst et al, 2020), one study sought to help reduce sexual harassment by training bystanders (Rawski et al, 2022), and another one focused on trying to explore group aggression and bystander behavior through embodiment with a victim of sexual harassment (Neyret et al, 2020). Regarding rehabilitation studies, most were done with the purpose of reducing offenders' risk of IPV or aggressive behavior (Seinfeld et al, 2018;Gonzalez-Liencres et al, 2020;Klein Tuente et al, 2020;Seinfeld et al, 2023), while one study focused on the rehabilitation of sexual violence survivors (Lee and Cha, 2021).…”

“…Regarding the effect of VR in bystander behavior, participants in the VR group were more likely than the video group to report intentions to engage in indirect, non-confrontational interventions, such as "intervening" (i.e., causing a distraction or removing the target from the situation), or "approaching" (i.e., offering social support to the target after the incident) (Rawski et al, 2022). In fact, a recent review by Park and Kim (2023) concluded that traditional offline methods, VR, and webbased methods significantly improved bystander outcomes (i.e., awareness, definition, responsibility, bystander efficacy, gender norms/attitudes, intention to intervene, and action to intervene), while videos did not.…”

“…Second, in this review we have seen how different usages of VR can be advantageous for specific population groups. Specifically, using VR as a prevention tool has proven to be effective with young adults (Rowe et al, 2015;Neyret et al, 2020;Seinfeld et al, 2020;Lee and Cha, 2021;Rawski et al, 2022). Institutions could benefit from using VR in educational settings in order to reduce psychological violence (increasing empathy), prevent victimization (assertiveness training), decrease sexual harassment, and increase bystander behavior.…”

Don’t walk on by: how to confront bias and bigotry aimed at others

“…VR systems might provide a more objective window. Rawski and her colleagues found that volunteers who watched a sexual-harassment situation in a VR system were more likely than those who watched it on a screen to say that they would intervene indirectly, by creating a distraction or following up with the target later 2 . Rawski suspects that because the VR system felt more authentic, participants had more desire to help despite still being anxious about confronting the perpetrator directly.…”