Sex Roles

, Volume 17, Issue 5–6, pp 269–290 | Cite as

Sexual harassment proclivities in men

  • John B. Pryor
Article

Abstract

Three studies were conducted to develop and validate a measure of sexual harassment proclivities in males. Previous studies of sexual harassment were reviewed and a gap in the current knowledge of the psychological characteristics of sexual harassers was revealed. A possible technique for studying sexual harassment proclivities was suggested by recent research on rape proclivities. Two initial studies using this technique found (1) that the likelihood of sexually harassing can be reliably measured and 2) that this measure correlated with related attitude and belief measures. The third study demonstrated that the likelihood of sexual harassment measure can predict sexual behaviors in a laboratory setting.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abel, G., Barlow, D., Blanchard, E., & Guild, D. The components of rapists' sexual arousal. Archives of General Psychology, 1977, 34, 395–403.Google Scholar
  2. Armor, D. J. Factor scaling and theta reliability. In H. Costner (ed.), Sociological methodology, San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. L. The measurement of psychological androgyny. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 1974, 42, 155–162.Google Scholar
  4. Berkowitz, N. H., & Wolkon, G. H. A formal choice form of F scale-free of acquiescent response set. Sociometry, 1964, 27, 54–65.Google Scholar
  5. Bernstein, W., Stephenson, B., Snyder, M., & Wicklund, R. Causal ambiguity and heterosexual affiliation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 19, 78–92.Google Scholar
  6. Brewer, M. Further beyond nine to five: An integration and future directions. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38, 149–158.Google Scholar
  7. Burt, M. (1978). Attitudes supportive of rape in American culture. House Committee on Science and Technology, Subcommittee on Domestic and International Scientific Planning Analysis and Cooperation, Research in Violent Behavior: Sexual Assaults. Hearing, 95th Congress, 2nd Session, Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, January 10–12, 1978, pp. 277–322.Google Scholar
  8. Burt, M. Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 217–230.Google Scholar
  9. Chappell, D. Forcible rape and the criminal justice system: Surveying present practices and projecting future trends. In M. J. Walker & S. L. Brodsky (eds.), Sexual assault: The victim and the rapist. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath, 1976.Google Scholar
  10. Christie, R., & Geiss, F. Studies in Machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press, 1970.Google Scholar
  11. Collins, F. G. C., & Blodgett, T. B. Sexual harassment: Some see it... some won't. Harvard Business Review, 1981, 59, 77–95.Google Scholar
  12. Cronbach, L., & Meehl, P. Construct validity in psychological tests. Psychological Bulletin, 1955, 52, 281–302.Google Scholar
  13. Crowne, D., & Marlowe, D. The approval motive. New York: Wiley, 1955.Google Scholar
  14. Davis, M. H. A multidimensional approach to individual differences in empathy. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1980, 10, 85.Google Scholar
  15. Davis, M. H. Measuring individual differences in empathy: Evidence for a multidimensional approach. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1983, 44, 113–126.Google Scholar
  16. Fisher, W. A., & Byrne, D. Individual differences in affective, evaluative and behavioral responses to an erotic film. Journal of Social Psychology, 1978, 8, 355–365.Google Scholar
  17. Field, H. S. Attitudes toward rape: A comparative analysis of police, rapists, crisis counselors and citizens. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1978, 36, 156–179.Google Scholar
  18. Groth, M. A. Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York: Plenum, 1978.Google Scholar
  19. Gutek, B. Experiences of sexual harassment: Results from a representative survey. Paper presented at the American Psychological Association Convention, Los Angeles, CA, 1981.Google Scholar
  20. Gutek, B. Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.Google Scholar
  21. Gutek, B., & Morash, B. Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38, 55–74.Google Scholar
  22. Gutek, B., Morash, B., & Cohen, A. Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1983, 22, 30–48.Google Scholar
  23. Gutek, B. A., Makamura, C. Y., Gahart, M., & Hanschumacher. Sexuality and the workplace. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1980, 1, 255–265.Google Scholar
  24. Henley, N., & Freeman, J. The sexual politics of interpersonal behavior. In J. Freeman (Ed.), Women: A feminist perspective. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield, 1975.Google Scholar
  25. Jensen, I., & Gutek, B. Attributions and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38, 121–136.Google Scholar
  26. Journard, S., & Rubin, J. Self-disclosure and touching: A study of two modes of interpersonal encounter and their interrelation. Journal of Humanistic Psychology, 1968, 8, 39–48.Google Scholar
  27. Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 1980, 31, 457–502.Google Scholar
  28. Major, B., & Heslin, R. Perceptions of cross-sex and same-sex nonreciprocal touch: It is better to give than to receive. Journal of Nonverbal Behavior, 1982, 6, 148–162.Google Scholar
  29. Malamuth, N. Rape proclivity among males. Journal of Social Issues, 1981, 37, 138–157.Google Scholar
  30. Malamuth, N., & Check, J. Penile tumescence and perceptual responses to rape as a function of victim's perceived reactions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 1980, 10, 520–547. (a)Google Scholar
  31. Malamuth, N., & Check, J. Sexual arousal to rape and consenting depictions: The importance of woman's arousal. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 1980, 14, 763–766. (b)Google Scholar
  32. Malamuth, N., Haber, Sc., & Feshbach, S. Testing hypotheses regarding rape: Exposure to sexual violence, sex differences and the “normality of rape.” Journal of Research in Personality, 1980, 14, 121–137.Google Scholar
  33. Malamuth, N., Heim, M., & Feshback, S. The sexual responsiveness of college students to rape depictions: Inhibitory and disinhibitory effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1980, 38, 399–408.Google Scholar
  34. Medea, A., & Thompson, K. Against rape. New York: Farrar, Strauss, & Giroux, 1974.Google Scholar
  35. Perry, S. Sexual harassment on the campuses: Deciding where to draw the line. Chronicle of Higher Education, March 26, 1983, 21–22.Google Scholar
  36. Pryor, J. B. The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 1985, 13, 273–278.Google Scholar
  37. Reily, P. J. Sexual harassment in the Navy. Unpublished master's thesis, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, CA, 1980.Google Scholar
  38. Rielly, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K. The factorial survey technique: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social issues, 1982, 38, 99–110.Google Scholar
  39. Smith, E., Ferree, M., & Miller, F. A short scale of attitudes toward feminism. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1975, 6, 51–56.Google Scholar
  40. Snyder, M. L., & Wicklund, R. A. Attribute ambiguity. In J. H. Harvey, W. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 3), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981.Google Scholar
  41. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedants. Austin: University of Texas Press, 1978.Google Scholar
  42. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Holahan, C. M. Negative and positive components of psychological masculinity and femininity and their relationships to self-reports of neurotic and acting-out behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1673–1682.Google Scholar
  43. Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R., & Stapp, J. The Personal Attributes Questionnaire: A measure of sex role stereotypes and masculinity-femininity. JSAS Catalogue of Selected Documents in Psychology, 1974, 4, 43. (Ms No. 617).Google Scholar
  44. Tangri, S., Burt, M., & Johnson, L. Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38, 111–120.Google Scholar
  45. United States Merit Systems Protection Board. Sexual harassment in the Federal Workplace. Is it a problem? Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981.Google Scholar
  46. Vogelman-Sine, S., Ervin, E., Christensen, R., Warmsun, C., & Ullman, L. Sex differences in feelings attributed to a woman in situations involving coercion and sexual advances. Journal of Personality, 1979, 47, 420–431.Google Scholar
  47. White, L. A., Fisher, W. A., Byrne, D., & Kingma, R. Development and validation of affective orientation to erotic stimuli: The Sexual Opinion Survey. Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, May 1977.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • John B. Pryor
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyIllinois State UniversityNormal

Personalised recommendations