Addressing himpathy: How organizations can navigate bias in sexual assault allegations

In 2018, the US Congress and the public witnessed the polarizing hearings involving then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and Christine Blasey Ford, during which Blasey Ford made a detailed and credible testimony accusing Kavanaugh of sexual assault. Despite these serious allegations, her testimony was followed by an outpouring of sympathy for Kavanaugh and anger towards Blasey Ford.[i] And Blasey Ford is not alone in this experience. The public expression of sympathy toward the accused predator, a phenomenon that philosopher and professor Kate Manne terms “himpathy,” is also present in lower profile cases of sexual misconduct accusation.

This study explores himpathy, who is more likely to experience himpathy, and what managers in an organization can do to navigate it at work. The researchers find that individuals who value loyalty, authority, and purity more than the average person are more likely to see the victim seeking justice as disloyal to the organization. In a case of sexual misconduct allegations, managers are advised to stay neutral and refrain from language that could be interpreted as the victim being disloyal. Furthermore, they should form an investigative committee with diverse backgrounds to ensure biases stay out of the decision-making process.

“…individuals who value loyalty, authority, and purity more than the average person are more likely to see the victim…as disloyal to the organization.

Himpathy, as defined by Manne, refers to “excessive sympathy shown toward male perpetrators of sexual violence.”[ii] Himpathy is often expressed in an angry tone, and the language used to express those sympathies is usually linked to the victim and takes the form of gaslighting. One typical example of himpathy is somebody asking on their social media account why the victim wants to hurt the accused’s career. Another example is death threats, which Blasey Ford received long after the testimony. Many of these actions are clearly meant to hurt the victim, yet they are hard to take action against. This is to say, himpathy is not merely an opinion; it may cause additional harm to the victim and create a workplace environment that allows for misconduct to continue.

Professors Samantha J. Dodson, Rachel D. Goodwin, Jesse Graham, and Kristina A. Diekmann explored the factors behind himpathy in this study. The researchers studied thousands of tweets after the #MeToo movement and paired this with experimental and survey evidence. Their research highlights that individuals exhibiting himpathy often prioritize group-focused moral values such as loyalty, authority, and purity. This emphasis on group cohesion can extend to organizations or institutions. Using that lens, reporting a colleague’s misconduct is viewed as morally wrong, leading to undue sympathy for the accused, lower perceptions of the victim’s credibility, and decreased desires to punish the perpetrator.

“…himpathy is not merely an opinion; it may cause additional harm to the victim and create a workplace environment that allows for misconduct to continue.”

What are some strategies for workplace interventions? The researchers offer two key insights. Firstly, respond judiciously. Recognize that most individuals have sympathy for the victim. However, there will be a small but vocal group that may sway the situation, and if given decision-making power, will make biased decisions. Thus, refraining from depicting the victim as disloyal, inferior, or impure will not validate the himpathy perspective. Dodson explains that while a manager’s sympathy towards the victim may not sway someone who feels himpathy, it still may prevent the himpathetic group from growing louder, potentially averting further adverse effects on the victim before the misconduct (in the vast majority of cases) is confirmed.

Secondly, when forming investigative committees for alleged misconduct, ensure that the committee consists of multiple people and comes with diverse perspectives, given the sensitive and emotional nature of sexual misconduct. Dodson and colleagues also recommend adding protective measures for the committee, such as anonymity or legal immunity, which can shield committee members from pressure exerted by himpathetic leaders within the organization.

Dodson and colleagues’ pioneering work sheds light on the existence and dynamics of himpathy, but further research is required to better understand the different forms himpathy can take and how they affect the victim. For example, a death threat will have an entirely different impact on the victim than a social media user publicly questioning the victim’s credibility, or someone close to the victim discouraging them from coming forward because it could ruin the perpetrator’s career. We should also try to understand the reasons for the perpetrator’s behavior. This is particularly important and fruitful in the workplace since it is more clearly and closely governed than society as a whole. Dodson hopes that organizations will see the benefits this research could offer and open their doors and databases for such studies.

References

[i] Stolberg, Sheryl Gay. 2018. “Kavanaugh’s Nomination in Turmoil as Accuser Says He Assaulted Her Decades Ago.” The New York Times, September 16, 2018. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/16/us/politics/brett-kavanaugh-christine-blasey-ford-sexual-assault.html; “Kavanaugh’s Accuser Struggled to Come Forward, Friends Say.” 2018. AP News. September 19, 2018. https://apnews.com/article/44f88e604eae493e84d02a13eaa8c1c9.; Italie, Hillel. 2023. “Christine Blasey Ford, Who Testified against Justice Brett Kavanaugh, Will Release a Memoir in 2024.” AP News. September 13, 2023. https://apnews.com/article/christine-blasey-ford-memoir-b87467b11e59d2ce74767b6dc8ce6adb.

[ii] Manne, K. (2017, p 338). Down girl: The logic of misogyny. Oxford University Press.

______

Research brief prepared by:

Manuela R. Collis