Sex Roles

, Volume 17, Issue 5–6, pp 291–311

Sexual harassment: Organizational context and diffuse status

  • Terri C. Fain
  • Douglas L. Anderton
Article

Abstract

Data from a large survey of federal employees is utilized to compare three broad competing perspectives that suggest effects on sexual harassment within organizations. Three different viewpoints stress power differentials, minority status, and diffuse master status characteristics. Results of the study indicate that intraorganizational theories emphasizing either power inequalities or work group compositional heterogeneities are unable to account for the reported sexual harassment without considering diffuse master status characteristics developed and maintained outside the organization.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Backhouse, C., & Cohen L. Sexual harassment on the job: How to avoid the working woman's nightmare. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1981.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, D. J., & Thompson, G. E. Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest and gender stratification. Unpublished research paper, Berkeley: University of California, 1979.Google Scholar
  3. Blau, P. M. Inequality and heterogeneity: A primitive theory of social structure. New York: The Free Press, 1977.Google Scholar
  4. Bularzik, M. Sexual harassment at the workplace: historical notes. Reprinted in pamphlet from Radical American, MA: New England Free Press, July–August, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. Carey, S. H. Sexual politics in business. Unpublished research paper, San Antonio: University of Texas at San Antonio, 1977.Google Scholar
  6. Coles, F. S. Forced to quit: Sexual harassment complaints and agency response. Sex Roles, 1986, 14, 81–95.Google Scholar
  7. Collins, R. A. Conflict theory of sexual stratification. Social Problems, 1971, 1–20.Google Scholar
  8. Collins, R. Conflict sociology: Toward an explanatory science. New York: Academic Press, 1975.Google Scholar
  9. Crull, P. The impact of sexual harassment on the job: A profile of the experiences of 92 women. In D. Neugarten & J. Shafritz. (eds.), Sexuality in organizations: Romantic and coercive behaviors at work. Oak Park, IL: Moore Publishing Co., 1980.Google Scholar
  10. Crocker, P. L. An analysis of university definitions of sexual harassment. Signs, 1983, 696–707.Google Scholar
  11. Dixon, W. J., (ed.). BMB: Biomedical computer programs. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1981.Google Scholar
  12. Eskilson, A., & Wiley, M. G. Sex composition and leadership in small groups. Sociometry, 1976, 183–194.Google Scholar
  13. Farley, L. Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. San Francisco: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1978.Google Scholar
  14. Finigan, M. The effects of token representation on participation in small groups and decision making groups. Economic and Industrial Democracy, 1982, 531–550.Google Scholar
  15. Gillespie, D. L., Leffler, A., Anderton, T., & Collis, C. Sexism, sex, and power: Sexual harassment in the workplace. Unpublished paper delivered at the American Sociological Association meetings, San Francisco, CA, 1982.Google Scholar
  16. Ginsberg, G., Koreski, J., & Galloway, J. Sexual advances by an employee's supervisor: A sex discrimination violation of Title VII? Employee Relations Law Journal, 1977, 83–93.Google Scholar
  17. Goodman, L. A. Criteria of determining whether certain categories in a cross-classification table should be combined, with special reference to occupational categories in an occupational mobility table. American Journal of Sociology, 1981, 612–650.Google Scholar
  18. Gruber, J. & Bjorn, L. Blue-collar blues: The sexual harassment of women workers. Work and Occupations, 1982, 271–298.Google Scholar
  19. Hartmann, H. I. The family as the locus of gender, class, and political struggle: The example of housework. Signs, 1981, 366–394.Google Scholar
  20. Henley, N. M. Body politics: Power, sex, and nonverbal communication. Englewood Cliffs, Prentice-Hall, 1977.Google Scholar
  21. Israeli, D. N. Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter's theory of proportions. Social Forces, 1983, 153–165.Google Scholar
  22. Kanter, R. M. Some effects of proportions on group life: Skewed sex ratios and responses to token women. American Journal of Sociology, 1977, 965–990.Google Scholar
  23. MacKinnon, C. A. Sexual harassment of working women. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979.Google Scholar
  24. Miller, G. A., Anderton, D. L., & Conaty, J. Assessing the samples of prior organizational research. Journal of Management Studies, 1985, 369–383.Google Scholar
  25. Morewitz, S. J. The sexual harassment of working women. Paper delivered at the American Sociological Association meetings, Toronto, 1981.Google Scholar
  26. New Responses, Inc. Sexual harassment in the federal government. Hearing before the subcommittee on Investigations of the Committee on Post Office and Civil Service, U.S. House of Representatives, 96th Congress, 1st Session, October 23, 1979. Published Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Ofice, 1980.Google Scholar
  27. Powell, G. N. Effects of sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 1986, 14, 9–19.Google Scholar
  28. Prior, J. B. The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 1985, 13, 273–286.Google Scholar
  29. Rhodin, N. K. Comment: Employment discrimination—Sexual harassment and Title VII—Female employees' claim alleging verbal and physical advances by a male supervisor dismissed as nonactionable. Corne v. Bausch & Lomb, Inc. New York University Law Review, 1976, 148–165.Google Scholar
  30. Safran, C. What men do to women on the job: A shocking look at sexual harassment. Redbook, November 1976, 217–224.Google Scholar
  31. Sangamon State University, Center for Policy Studies and Program Evaluation. Study of unwanted sexual attention received by female state employees: Preliminary data. Springfield, IL: Sangamon State University, 1979.Google Scholar
  32. Seymour, W. C. Sexual harassment: finding a cause of action under Title VII. Labor Law Journal, 1979, 139–156.Google Scholar
  33. Skeen, R., & Nielsen, J. Sociological analysis of student faculty sexual relationships. Unpublished paper, Institute of Behavioral Science, University of Colorado, 1982.Google Scholar
  34. Snedacor, G. W., & Cochran, W. G. Statistical methods (6th ed.), Ames, Iowa: Iowa University Press, 1967.Google Scholar
  35. Sokoloff, N. J. Between money and love: The dialectics of women's home and market work. New York: Praeger Publishers, 1980.Google Scholar
  36. Till, F. J. Sexual harassment: A report on the sexual harassment of students. Report of the National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs. U.S. Department of Education, 1980.Google Scholar
  37. United Nations Ad Hoc Group on Equal Rights for Women. Report on Questionnaire XXXVI. Report on file at New York University Law Review, reported in Note 51, New York University Law Review, 1976, 148–149.Google Scholar
  38. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies. Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1981.Google Scholar
  39. Weitzman, L. J. Sex role socialization. Palo Alto, CA: Mayfield Publishing Company, 1979.Google Scholar
  40. Working Women's Institute. Sexual Harassment on the job: Results of preliminary survey. New York: Working Women's Institute, 1975.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • Terri C. Fain
    • 1
  • Douglas L. Anderton
    • 2
  1. 1.University of Illinois at ChicagoUSA
  2. 2.University of ChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations