Effects of gender and situation on the perception of sexual harassment
Rent the article at a discountRent now
* Final gross prices may vary according to local VAT.Get Access
This study addressed three sources of variability in the perception of sexual harassment: the gender of the observer, the gender combination of the harasser and victim, and the role relationship between the harasser and victim. College students (N = 197), approximately 80% of whom were Caucasian, single, and in their early 20s, were randomly divided into two groups. In one group, the harasser was a man and the victim was a woman. In the other group, the harasser was a woman and the victim was a man. Participants rated the degree to which they thought sexual harassment occurred in 20 hypothetical interactions in each of three situations using a 7-point sexual harassment scale. Men and women rated the situations alike as long as the harasser was a man and the victim was a woman. When the perpetrator was a woman and the victim was a man, men gave significantly lower ratings than women. In contrast, women's ratings were the same regardless of the gender of the harasser. Harassment ratings also varied as a function of the power differential between the harasser and victim. The more egalitarian the relationship, the less likely participants were to perceive the behavior as sexually harassing.
- Baker, D., Terpstra, D., & Cutler, B. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A reexamination of gender differences.The Journal of Psychology, 124 409–416.
- Baker, D., Terpstra, D., & Larntz, K. (1990). The influence of individual characteristics and severity of harassing behavior on reactions to sexual harassment.Sex Roles, 22 305–325.
- Charney, D., & Russell, R. (1994). An overview of sexual harassment.American Journal of Psychiatry, 151 10–17.
- Crichton, M. (1992).Disclosure. New York: Random House.
- Crooks, R. & Baur, K. (1993).Our sexuality (5th ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummins.
- Faley, R. (1982). Sexual harassment: A critical review of legal cases with general principles and preventive measures.Personnel Psychology, 35 583–600.
- Jones, T., & Remland, M. (1992). Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment.Sex Roles, 27 121–141.
- Kelley, H., & Michela, J. (1984). Attribution theory and research.Annual Review of Psychology, 31 457–502.
- Kenig, S., & Ryan, J. (1986). Sex differences in levels of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campus.Sex Roles, 15 535–549.
- Merit Systems Protection Board, (1988).Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
- Mischel, W. (1993).Introduction to personality (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich.
- Pryor, J. (1985). The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment.Sex Roles, 13 273–286.
- Reilly, M., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students.Sex Roles, 15 333–358.
- Shea, M. (1993). The effects of selective evaluation on the perception of female cues in sexually coercive and noncoercive males.Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22 415–432.
- Terpstra, D., & Baker, D. (1986). A framework for the study of sexual harassment.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7 17–34.
- Terpstra, D., & Baker, D. (1987). Psychological and demographic correlates of perceptions of sexual harassment.Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 112 461–478.
- Terpstra, D., & Baker, D. (1987). A hierarchy of sexual harassment.The Journal of Psychology, 121 599–605.
- Effects of gender and situation on the perception of sexual harassment
Volume 34, Issue 1-2 , pp 35-42
- Cover Date
- Print ISSN
- Online ISSN
- Kluwer Academic Publishers-Plenum Publishers
- Additional Links
- Industry Sectors