Predictors of Street Harassment Attitudes in British and Italian Men: Empathy and Social Dominance

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Overall, the study is well written and justified. Some additional clarity in places and acknowledgement of the experimental aspect of the study is needed throughout. 

Abstract

The abstract uses causal terminology to make conclusions about correlational results (e.g., cognitive empathy and SDO as key factors influencing…)

The abstract fails to describe the experimental effect of a reduction in street harassment tolerance in one of the groups

Introduction

The introduction is well written and covers the necessary literature to justify the study.

 

The predictions stated in the introduction do not address the pre/post video ratings of street harassment tolerance.

 

Methods

The methods are generally efficient and well written.

The study is described as correlational (p4 line 129) but contains an experimental (pre/post) aspect.

The video used is somewhat confronting but also includes a message at the end quantifying the instances as well as references to support services – I wonder if this last part was shown to participants since it might elicit a higher degree of socially desirable responding.

The decision to combine the two empathy scales needed more justification other than simply a high alpha – were the scales highly correlated. What happens when the items are subject to an exploratory factor analysis? Have other researchers combined the before? The scale is over 20 years old – there might be research since which supports this.

It is unclear what the purpose of collecting relationship status and friendship group contributed to the study.

Results

 The results regarding empathy are confusing. It is first stated that empathy was negatively associated with street harassment (p6, line244) but then the correlations between positive and negative empathy are reported rather than the correlation between empathy and street harassment tolerance. It is odd that positive and negative empathy are separated here because the methods claiming that positive and negative items were combined into a single composite. The low and negative correlations between positive an negative empathy here do not support combining them into a single composite.

It is claimed that parameter estimates are reported in Table A2. But the unit of this parameter is unclear (is this a beta value?)

The results claim that a final aim was to “examine whether nationality influenced levels of street harassment tolerance, cognitive empathy, and SDO”. The aim is stated as a causal effect (influenced).

Discussion

The discussion failed to acknowledge the experimental effect of the video.

The argument regarding “reduced peer support” (line376) was unclear – is this for victims or perpetrators?

General Issues

Italicize r (section 3.4)

Author Response

We would like to thank each reviewer for their time and consideration. As a result, this manuscript has improved significantly.

 

Comment 1: The abstract uses causal terminology to make conclusions about correlational results (e.g., cognitive empathy and SDO as key factors influencing…)

Response 1: We agree with this comment. Therefore, we have revised the entire paper to ensure that the wording reflects the correlational nature of our findings.

 

Comment 2: The abstract fails to describe the experimental effect of a reduction in street harassment tolerance in one of the groups.

Response 2: We appreciate this suggestion and have now incorporated the experimental effect into the abstract. On page 1, lines 14-15, we have added: "Exposure to the video significantly reduced street harassment tolerance in British participants but had no significant effect in the Italian sample."

 

Comment 3: The predictions stated in the introduction do not address the pre/post video ratings of street harassment tolerance.

Response 3: Thank you for highlighting this omission. We have now explicitly stated the goal of exploring regarding pre/post video ratings (line 136), as well as mentioning earlier research on video-based intervention in the introduction (line 82).

 

Comment 4: The study is described as correlational (p4 line 129) but contains an experimental (pre/post) aspect.

Response 4: We appreciate this observation and have clarified the mixed-methods nature of the study. At line 146 we have changed " We used a mixed-methods design, combining correlational analysis to examine associations between cognitive empathy, SDO, and street harassment tolerance, with an experimental pre/post analysis to assess changes in street harassment tolerance following video exposure.”

 

Comment 5: The video used is somewhat confronting but also includes a message at the end quantifying the instances as well as references to support services – I wonder if this last part was shown to participants since it might elicit a higher degree of socially desirable responding.

Response 5: We confirm that the final part of the video was not shown to participants to avoid eliciting socially desirable responses. We have now explicitly stated this from line 201: "The final part of the video, which includes a message quantifying the instances of harassment and references to support services, was not shown to participants to avoid eliciting socially desirable responses.”

 

Comment 6: “The decision to combine the two empathy scales needed more justification other than simply a high alpha.” + “The results regarding empathy are confusing…”

Response 6: Thank you for highlighting this. We have now ensured consistency between the methods and results sections. Previous research, now cited, however, combines all ratings into a single score. For consistency,  we also combined them. Specifically, on page 5, lines 218-223, we have clarified that, following previous research, we computed a composite cognitive empathy score. In the results section (line 293) and Appendix B (Table A2), we report the correlation between the overall cognitive empathy score and street harassment tolerance across the full sample, as well as relationships with each of the subscales. Model comparison using AIC was used to determine the most appropriate measure to take forward for further analysis (i.e. composite score).

 

Comment 7: It is unclear what the purpose of collecting relationship status and friendship group contributed to the study.

Response 7: The relationship status and friendship group composition questions were initially included to explore potential secondary influences on harassment tolerance for independent undergraduate dissertations, now mentioned (line 237); they were not a focus of the study.  We have clarified this in the methods section.

 

Comment 8:  It is claimed that parameter estimates are reported in Table A2. But the unit of this parameter is unclear (is this a beta value?)

Response 8: Yes, they are standardized parameter estimates, we have rephrased the table description to clarify it.

 

Comment 9:   The results claim that a final aim was to “examine whether nationality influenced levels of street harassment tolerance, cognitive empathy, and SDO”. The aim is stated as a causal effect (influenced).

Response 9: We have revised this statement to reflect the correlational nature of our analysis, changing "influenced" to "would differ" to ensure accuracy, line 317.

 

Comment 10: The discussion failed to acknowledge the experimental effect of the video.

Response 10: Agree. We have now explicitly acknowledged the experimental effect of the video in the discussion section (line 381).

Reviewer 2 Report

Your manuscript addresses a critical and timely issue by exploring the cognitive and social underpinnings of street harassment tolerance across distinct cultural contexts. With revisions to further justify scale adaptations, address potential sample biases, and elaborate on the divergent effects of the video stimulus, the paper will be significantly strengthened. I encourage the authors to consider the following points carefully in a revised submission.

• You adapt a 10-item measure from Fernandez and Marshall’s (2003) Rapist Empathy Scale to assess cognitive empathy. Please provide more discussion on why a scale originally developed in the context of rapist empathy is suitable for assessing general cognitive empathy in relation to street harassment. Clarification on any modifications made to the scale and evidence of its construct validity in this context would strengthen the manuscript.
• The slight modifications made to the Darnell and Cook (2009) measure (e.g., removal of “unreciprocated and unnecessary”) should be further justified. How might these modifications affect the interpretation of tolerance levels? A discussion of potential implications for comparability with previous studies would be useful.
• The manuscript restricts the sample to heterosexual men, which is understandable given the video stimulus and focus. However, further discussion is warranted on how this choice might limit the generalizability of your findings to broader populations (e.g., non-heterosexual men, women, or other cultural groups).
• Recruitment via Prolific and social media may introduce selection bias. Although you acknowledge this in the limitations, consider elaborating on how these methods might influence the attitudes measured and what steps could be taken in future research to mitigate these concerns.
• The video significantly reduced street harassment tolerance in the British sample but not in the Italian sample. While you briefly mention potential floor effects and cultural factors, a more in-depth discussion of why this divergence might exist is needed. Are there cultural differences in media perception or baseline attitudes that could explain the disparity? Clarifying these points could enrich the cross-cultural contribution of the study.
• The use of Tobit regression is appropriate given the censoring of the street harassment tolerance scores. However, for readers less familiar with this method, additional context or a brief explanation of why and how Tobit models were implemented would be beneficial.
• While age was controlled in the analyses, the significant age difference between the samples deserves further discussion. How might age-related factors interact with cognitive empathy and SDO in shaping street harassment tolerance? A brief discussion or additional analysis could clarify this point.
• Similarly, differences in education or compensation type (Prolific vs. social media) might influence the results. Even if these factors were not statistically significant, a comment on their potential role would be useful.
• The discussion could benefit from a clearer delineation between what the study conclusively shows versus what remains speculative. For instance, the causal direction between empathy and tolerance remains ambiguous given the correlational design. Emphasizing the need for experimental or longitudinal studies in future research would be beneficial.
• Consider expanding on potential intervention strategies suggested by your findings. How might enhancing cognitive empathy or challenging SDO be operationalized in practical prevention programs?

Overall, I find the study promising and worthy of publication after addressing these revisions.

None.

Author Response

We would like to thank each reviewer for their time and consideration. This manuscript is much improved as a result.

Comment 1: You adapt a 10-item measure from Fernandez and Marshall’s (2003) Rapist Empathy Scale to assess cognitive empathy. Please provide more discussion on why a scale originally developed in the context of rapist empathy is suitable for assessing general cognitive empathy in relation to street harassment. Clarification on any modifications made to the scale and evidence of its construct validity in this context would strengthen the manuscript.

Response 1:  Agree. We have clarified why this scale is appropriate for measuring cognitive empathy in street harassment contexts based on past research. Additionally, we have provided details on how we adapted the scale to our study. These revisions can be found from line 207.

 

Comment 2: The slight modifications made to the Darnell and Cook (2009) measure (e.g., removal of “unreciprocated and unnecessary”) should be further justified. How might these modifications affect the interpretation of tolerance levels? A discussion of potential implications for comparability with previous studies would be useful.

Response 2: Agree. We clarified the justification for removing the terms "unreciprocated and unnecessary" from the scale items and explain that this change would reduce social desirability in the responders. Changes are in the revised manuscript from line 193.

 

Comment 3: The manuscript restricts the sample to heterosexual men, which is understandable given the video stimulus and focus. However, further discussion is warranted on how this choice might limit the generalizability of your findings to broader populations (e.g., non-heterosexual men, women, or other cultural groups).

Response 3: Agree. We have added a discussion on the restricted focus of our study on heterosexual men and its potential impact on the generalizability of the findings to other populations and other types of street harassment. This discussion can be found in the Discussion section, at the end of the Limitations and Future Directions paragraph.

 

Comment 4: Recruitment via Prolific and social media may introduce selection bias. Although you acknowledge this in the limitations, consider elaborating on how these methods might influence the attitudes measured and what steps could be taken in future research to mitigate these concerns.

Response 4: Agree. We elaborated on how these recruitment methods might influence the measured attitudes, and added suggestions for future research, including assessing how different recruitment methods might impact the findings. These changes can be found in the first paragraph of the Limitations and Future Directions section.

 

Comment 5: The video significantly reduced street harassment tolerance in the British sample but not in the Italian sample. While you briefly mention potential floor effects and cultural factors, a more in-depth discussion of why this divergence might exist is needed. Are there cultural differences in media perception or baseline attitudes that could explain the disparity? Clarifying these points could enrich the cross-cultural contribution of the study.

Response 5: Agree. We agree and have expanded the discussion to provide a more in-depth analysis of the potential cultural factors, as well as age differences between the samples that could contribute to the divergence between the British and Italian samples  From lines 381 and 396.   

 

Comment 6: The use of Tobit regression is appropriate given the censoring of the street harassment tolerance scores. However, for readers less familiar with this method, additional context or a brief explanation of why and how Tobit models were implemented would be beneficial.

Response 6: We have included a brief explanation in the revised manuscript (from line 254) to clarify why Tobit models were implemented and how they account for the floor effects observed in the data.

 

Comment 7: While age was controlled in the analyses, the significant age difference between the samples deserves further discussion. How might age-related factors interact with cognitive empathy and SDO in shaping street harassment tolerance? A brief discussion or additional analysis could clarify this point.

Response 7: We agree and have expanded the discussion to address how age-related factors may influence cognitive empathy and street harassment tolerance. Specifically, we highlight that younger participants demonstrated lower tolerance and greater cognitive empathy, potentially reflecting generational shifts in gender attitudes. This underscores the importance of targeting educational interventions toward younger populations to reinforce empathy-building strategies early in social development. From line 396.

 

Comment 8: Similarly, differences in education or compensation type (Prolific vs. social media) might influence the results. Even if these factors were not statistically significant, a comment on their potential role would be useful.

Response 8: We have incorporated a discussion on the potential influence of education and recruitment methods (E.g., Prolific vs. social media) on the findings. We also suggest that future studies further examine how recruitment strategies may influence responses. Relative changes are on the first paragraph of the limitation section of the discussion (line 415).

 

Comment 9: The discussion could benefit from a clearer delineation between what the study conclusively shows versus what remains speculative. For instance, the causal direction between empathy and tolerance remains ambiguous given the correlational design. Emphasizing the need for experimental or longitudinal studies in future research would be beneficial.

Response 9: Agree. Changes are from line 430.

 

Comment 10: Consider expanding on potential intervention strategies suggested by your findings. How might enhancing cognitive empathy or challenging SDO be operationalized in practical prevention programs?

Response 10: We have included a new section in the discussion: from line 365.

Reviewer 3 Report

This study examines how cognitive empathy and social dominance orientation (SDO) influence tolerance of street harassment among heterosexual men in Italy and the UK. A total of 249 participants (136 Italian, 113 British) were assessed for SDO and baseline tolerance of street harassment. After watching a video depicting repeated harassment, they reported their perceptions of the victim’s emotions and were reassessed for tolerance. Results showed that lower cognitive empathy and higher SDO were linked to greater acceptance of street harassment, consistent across both cultures.

Your text is well-structured, clear, and presents a compelling study. Below are some suggestions for improvement: The paper is well-written and provides a clear summary of the study, since from the introduction, to methods, results, and conclusions it follows a logical sequence.

Pay attention to some generic sentences: “little is known about individual factors influencing societal tolerance of such behaviour,” consider specifying what aspects are understudied (e.g., empathy and SDO in particular). You might clarify why heterosexual men were chosen as the focus—this could strengthen the rationale.

In method section: It might be helpful to mention the type of video shown (e.g., staged or real footage) to provide more context and details to better understand the process elicited. Furthermore please specify better what precautions you used to not elicit too negative emotions in the participants, for example were they allowed to leave the experiment? In the debriefing what exactly was done in this regard?

In the results  and discussion some sentences need clarification; instead of “These associations were consistent across both cultural samples,” you could briefly indicate whether there were any cultural differences observed.

The sentence could be slightly more precise; instead of “provides a foundation for future studies across diverse cultural contexts, genders, and sexual orientations,” you could specify what aspects future research should explore (e.g., differences in empathy across genders, other individual or cultural factors).

Anyway the study addresses an important social issue with meaningful implications, the findings highlight key psychological factors shaping societal tolerance and suggest targets for interventions to reduce acceptance of harassment. In this sense, which kind of intervention do you suggest looking at these results, considering the age? In particular considering the role of empathy, you can discuss the possibility to intervene as in the case of hate speech? (see for instance a recent work of Sportelli, et al. (2025). “Let's Make the Difference!” Promoting Hate Counter‐Speech in Adolescence Through Empathy and Digital Intergroup Contact. JCASP, 35(1), e70028.) or also for dominance orientation the classical intervention of moral education like: Brown, M., McGrath, R. E., Bier, M. C., Johnson, K., & Berkowitz, M. W. (2023). A comprehensive meta-analysis of character education programs. Journal of Moral Education, 52(2), 119-138. Or also the recent innovative intervention aimed at stressing the emotional risks of being ‘humble’ in social interactions: see the work of D’Errico, (2019). ‘Too humble and sad’: The effect of humility and emotional display when a politician talks about a moral issue. Social Science Information, 58(4), 660-680 by reinforcing this applicative part that remains too vague at the moment.

Overall the paper is interesting, but it needs of refinements that could improve clarity and above all the impact in terms of intervention.

i detailed below

Author Response

We would like to thank each reviewer for their time and consideration. This manuscript is much improved as a result.

 

Comment 1: Pay attention to some generic sentences: “little is known about individual factors influencing societal tolerance of such behaviour,” consider specifying what aspects are understudied. You might clarify why heterosexual men were chosen as the focus—this could strengthen the rationale.

Response 1: Thank you for pointing this out. Due to the abstract's word count limitations, we are unable to include this detail in the abstract itself. However, we specify what aspects are understudied in the introduction, lines 70-77. We also stated more clearly our rationale behind focusing on heterosexual men on lines 26-33; as well as discussing it further in the discussion section.

 

Comment 2: It might be helpful to mention the type of video shown (e.g., staged or real footage) to provide more context.

Response 2: Agree, we have clarified this in the methods section. At line 201, we have added: "The video used in this study was real footage depicting unsolicited street harassment."

 

Comment 3: Specify what precautions were used to avoid eliciting negative emotions in participants.

Response 3: We appreciate this point and have now expanded the debriefing description. At lines 232 and 248, we have added: "Participants were informed prior to the study that they could withdraw at any time if they felt uncomfortable.” And “At the end of the study, participants were debriefed, with a detailed explanation of the study's purpose and goals. They were reminded of their right to withdraw their data, and they were provided with contact information for mental health support services should they wish to access them. The debrief also included a reminder that participants could contact the research team if they had any questions or concerns following their participation."

 

Comment 4: Instead of "These associations were consistent across both cultural samples," indicate whether there were any cultural differences observed.

Response 4: Agree. Our goal of testing in different countries was to replicate effects, but differences are also important.  On page 1, lines 13-16, we have revised the sentence to: " Higher tolerances of street harassment before and after viewing the video were associated with lower cognitive empathy and higher SDO in both countries. Exposure to the video reduced street harassment tolerance in British participants but had no significant effect in the Italian sample.

 

Comment 5: “Anyway the study addresses an important social issue … by reinforcing this applicative part that remains too vague at the moment.”

Response 5: We appreciate this valuable suggestion. On pages from lines 365 and other parts of the discussion, we expanded our discussion by incorporating more specific considerations about possible interventions and integrating the relevant suggested references.

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Thank you for your thorough and thoughtful responses to the initial review comments. I appreciate the effort you have taken to clarify key aspects of your study, provide additional justifications, and expand discussions where needed.

Your revisions effectively address the concerns raised, including the justification for scale adaptation, the implications of sample restrictions, and the influence of recruitment methods on findings. The expanded discussion on cultural differences, age-related factors, and potential intervention strategies strengthens the manuscript’s contributions. Additionally, the clarification of methodological choices, such as the use of Tobit regression, enhances the manuscript’s accessibility to a broader readership. Overall, the manuscript is significantly improved, and I find the revised version suitable for acceptance. I commend you for your thoughtful engagement with the feedback and your commitment to refining the study’s contributions.

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors revised the paper taking into account all suggestions. In my opinion can be accepted as it is. 

The authors revised the paper taking into account all suggestions. In my opinion can be accepted as it is.