Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 22, Issue 5–6, pp 305–325 | Cite as

The influence of individual characteristics and severity of harassing behavior on reactions to sexual harassment

  • Douglas D. Baker
  • David E. Terpstra
  • Kinley Larntz
Article

Abstract

Differences in reactions to 18 scenarios depicting potentially sexually harassing situations were studied as a function of harassment severity and individual level factors. The scenarios illustrate a continuum of behavior, with some situations depicting overt sexual harassment and others portraying more innocuous behaviors. The individuals' reactions were strongly influenced by the perceived severity of the incidents. Reactions were influenced to a lesser extent by the individual level factors of gender, attitudes toward women, religiosity, and locus of control. Among these factors, gender had the strongest effect on reaction types. Findings indicate that harassment severity and individual level factors may combine to influence reactions to sexual harassment.

Keywords

Social Psychology Individual Characteristic Sexual Harassment Level Factor Reaction Type 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Baker D. D., & Terpstra, D. E. (1986). Locus of control and self-esteem versus demographic factors as predictors of attitudes toward women. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7(2), 163–172.Google Scholar
  2. Baldridge, K., & McLean, G. (1980). Sexual harassment: How much of a problem is it... really? Journal of Business Education, 56 294–297.Google Scholar
  3. Barker, R. G. (1965). Explorations in ecological psychology. American Psychologist, 20(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  4. Bart, P. B. (1981). A study of women who were both raped and avoided rape. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 123–137.Google Scholar
  5. Benson, D., & Thompson, G. (1982). Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest, and gender stratification. Social Problems, 29 236–251.Google Scholar
  6. Bem, D. J., & Allen, A. (1974). On predicting some of the people some of the time: The search for cross-situational consistencies in behavior. Psychological Review, 81(6), 506–520.Google Scholar
  7. Bem, S. L. (1974). The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 42 155–162.Google Scholar
  8. Bem, S. L. Probing the promise of androgyny. In A. G. Kaplan & J. P. Bean (Eds.), Beyond sex-role stereotypes. Boston: Little, Brown, 1976.Google Scholar
  9. Bishop, Y. M. M., Fienberg, S. E., & Holland, P. W. Discrete multivariate analysis: Theory and practice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  10. Bowers, K. S. (1973). Situationalism in psychology: An analysis and a critique. Psychological Review, 80 307–336.Google Scholar
  11. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38(2), 217–230.Google Scholar
  12. Check, J. V. P., & Malmuth, N. M. (1983). Sex roles stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger v. acquaintance rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45(2), 344–356.Google Scholar
  13. Collins, E. G. C., & Blodgett, T. B. (1981). Sexual harassment: Some see it... and some won't. Harvard Business Review (March/April), 76–95.Google Scholar
  14. Cornell University. Study conducted in 1975 by the Working Women's Institute. Cited in L. Farley, Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.Google Scholar
  15. Cox, D. R., & Hinkley, D. V. (1974). Theoretical statistics. London: Chapman and Hall.Google Scholar
  16. Crull, P. (1982). Stress effects of sexual harassment on the job: Implications for counseling. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52 539–544.Google Scholar
  17. Daly, M. M. The church and the second sex. New York: Harper & Row, 1968.Google Scholar
  18. Edlefsen, L. E., & Jones, S. D. GAUSS. Kent, Washington: Aptech Systems, Inc., 1987.Google Scholar
  19. Endler, N. S. A person-situation interaction model for anxiety. In C. D. Spielberger & I. G. Sarason (Eds.), Stress and Anxiety. Vol. 1 (pp. 145–164). New York: John Wiley & Sons, 1975.Google Scholar
  20. Endler, N. S. The role of person-by-situation interactions in personality theory. In I. C. Uzgiris & F. Weizmann (Eds.), The structuring of experience (pp. 343–369). New York: Plenum Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. Endler, N. S., & Magnusson, D. (1976). Toward an interactional psychology of personality. Psychological Bulletin, 83(5), 956–974.Google Scholar
  22. Fair Employment Practices Guidelines. Waterford, CT: Bureau of Business Practice, 1978–1982.Google Scholar
  23. Farley, L. Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.Google Scholar
  24. Feshbach, S. (1956). The catharsis hypothesis and some consequences of interaction with aggressive and neutral play objects. Journal of Personality, 24(4) 449–462.Google Scholar
  25. Fowlkes, E. B., Freeny, A. E., & Landwehr, J. M. (1988). Evaluating logistic models for large contingency tables. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 83 611–622.Google Scholar
  26. Gilmore, T. M., & Minton, H. L. (1974). Internal versus external attribution of task performance as a function of locus of control, initial confidence and success-failure outcome. Journal of Personality, XLII(1), Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gough, H. Personality and personality assessment. In M. Dunnette (Ed.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (pp. 571–607). Chicago: Rand McNally, 1976.Google Scholar
  28. Gutek, B. A., & Dunwoody, V. Understanding sex in the workplace. In A. H. Stromberg, L. Larwood, & B. A. Gutek (Eds.), Women and work: An annual review (pp. 249–269). Vol. 2. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publishers Inc., 1986.Google Scholar
  29. Gutek, B. A. Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.Google Scholar
  30. Gutek, B. A., & Nakamura, C. Y. Gender roles and sexuality in the world of work. In E. R. Allgeier & N. B. McCormick (Eds.), Changing Boundaries (pp. 182–201). Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1983.Google Scholar
  31. Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1983). Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22 30–48.Google Scholar
  32. Gruber, J. E., & Bjorn, L. (1986). Women's responses to sexual harassment: An analysis of sociocultural, organizational, and personal resource models. Social Science Quarterly, 67(4), 814–826.Google Scholar
  33. Jensen, I. W., & Gutek, B. A. (1983). Attributions and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 121–136.Google Scholar
  34. Kanter, R. M. Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books, 1977.Google Scholar
  35. Konrad, A. M., & Gutek, B. A. (1986). Impact of work experience on attitudes toward sexual harassment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31 422–438.Google Scholar
  36. Lefcourt, H. M., & Wine, J. (1969). Internal versus external control of reinforcement and the development of attention in experimental situations. Canadian Journal of Behavioral Science, 1 167–181.Google Scholar
  37. Leap, T. L., & Gray, E. R. (1980). Corporate responsibility in cases of sexual harassment. Business Horizons, 23 58–65.Google Scholar
  38. MacKinnon, C. A. Sexual harassment of working women: A case of sex discrimination. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  39. Magnusson, D. (1971). An analysis of situational dimensions. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 32 851–867.Google Scholar
  40. Magnusson, D., & Ekehammar, B. (1973). An analysis of situational dimensions: a replication. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 8(3), 331–339.Google Scholar
  41. Malamuth, N. M. (1981). Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 37(4), 138–157.Google Scholar
  42. McCullagh, P., & Nelder, J. A. Generalized linear models. London: Chapman and Hall, 1983.Google Scholar
  43. Merit Systems Protection Board. Sexual harassment in the federal workplace. Washington, DC: Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies, 1981.Google Scholar
  44. Meyer, M. M. Applications and generalizations of the iterative proportional fitting procedure. Unpublished Ph.D. dissertation. School of Statistics. University of Minnesota, 1981.Google Scholar
  45. Neal, M. A. (1979). Women in religious symbolism and organization. Sociological Inquiry, 49 218–250.Google Scholar
  46. Numerical Algorithms Group. The generalized linear interactive modelling system: The GLIM system. Release 3.77. London: Royal Statistical Society, 1987.Google Scholar
  47. Pearlin, L. T., & Schooler, C. (1978). The structure of coping. Journal of Health and Social Behavior, 19 2–21.Google Scholar
  48. Powell, G. N. What do tomorrow's managers think about sexual intimacy in the workplace? Business Horizons 1986 (July–August), 30–35.Google Scholar
  49. Powell, G. N. Sexual harassment: Confronting the issue of definition. Business Horizons 1983, (July–August), 24–28.Google Scholar
  50. Radford-Reuther, R. Religion and sexism. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1974.Google Scholar
  51. Reid, D. W. Locus of control and an important concept for an interactionist approach to behavior. In D. Magnusson, & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interaction psychology (pp. 185–192). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.Google Scholar
  52. Rhodes, A. L. (1983). Effects of religious denomination of sex differences in occupational expectations. Sex Roles, 9(1), 93–108.Google Scholar
  53. Rodriguez, R., Nietzel, M. T., & Berzins, J. I. (1980). Sex role orientation and assertiveness among female college students. Behavior Therapy, 11 353–366.Google Scholar
  54. Rokeach, M. The nature of human values. New York: Free Press, 1973.Google Scholar
  55. Rosenberg, M. The self concept: Social product and social force. In M. Rosenberg and R. Turner (Eds.), Social psychology: Sociological perspectives (pp. 593–624). New York: Basic Books, 1981.Google Scholar
  56. Rotter, J. (1966). Generalized expectancies for internal versus external control of reinforcement. Psychological Monographs, 80(1, Whole No. 609).Google Scholar
  57. Safran, C. (1976). What men do to women on the job: A shocking look at sexual harassment. Redbook November, pp. 217–223.Google Scholar
  58. Sakamoto, Y., & Akaike, H. (1978). Analysis of cross classified data by AIC. Annals of the Institute of Statistical Mathematics, Part B, 30 185–197.Google Scholar
  59. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  60. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Stapp, J. (1975.) Ratings of self-esteem and conceptions of masculinity and feminity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 32 29–39.Google Scholar
  61. Stone, G. L., & Jackson, T. (1975). Internal-external control as a determinant of the effectiveness of modeling and instructions. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 22(4), 294–298.Google Scholar
  62. Terborg, J. R. (1981). Interactional psychology and research on human behavior in organizations. Academy of Management Review, 6 569–576.Google Scholar
  63. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1989). The identification and classification of reactions to sexual harassment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10(1), 1–14.Google Scholar
  64. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1988). Outcomes of sexual harassment charges. Academy of Management Journal, 31(1) 185–194.Google Scholar
  65. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1987a). A hierarchy of sexual harassment. The Journal of Psychology, 121(6), 599–605.Google Scholar
  66. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1987b). Psychological and demographic correlates of perceptions of sexual harassment. Genetic, Social and General Psychology Monographs, 112(4), 459–478.Google Scholar
  67. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1985). Reactions to sexual harassment. Presented at the 45th Annual Meeting of the Academy of Management, Boston.Google Scholar
  68. Thornton, A., Alwin, D. F., & Camburn, D. (1983). Causes and consequences of sex-role attitudes and attitude change. American Sociological Review, 48 211–227.Google Scholar
  69. United Nations. Study conducted in 1975 by the U.N. ad hoc group on equal rights for women. Cited in L. Farley (Ed.), Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1975.Google Scholar
  70. Weintraub, M., & Brown, L. M. The development of sex role stereotypes in children: Crushing realities. In V. Franks & E. D. Rothblum (Eds.), The Stereotyping of Women (pp. 30–58). New York: Springer Publishing Co., 1983.Google Scholar
  71. Wilson, J. Religion in American society Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, 1978.Google Scholar
  72. Zimbardo, P. Shyness. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley, 1978.Google Scholar
  73. Zuckerman, M., & Mellstrom, M., Jr. The contributions of persons, situations, models of responses and their interactions in self-reported responses to hypothetical and real anxiety-inducing situations. In D. Magnusson & N. S. Endler (Eds.), Personality at the crossroads: Current issues in interaction psychology (pp. 193–200). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1990

Authors and Affiliations

  • Douglas D. Baker
    • 1
  • David E. Terpstra
    • 2
  • Kinley Larntz
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Management and SystemsWashington State UniversityPullman
  2. 2.University of MississippiUSA
  3. 3.University of MinnesotaUSA

Personalised recommendations