Sex Roles

, Volume 30, Issue 9–10, pp 679–699

The impact of sexual harassment simulations on women's thoughts and feelings

  • Sarah Barton Samoluk
  • Grace M. H. Pretty


Women's thoughts and feelings in response to interpersonal and environmental sexual harassment simulations from co-workers with equal or greater organizational status were explored. Eighty-four professional women, primarily Caucasian, listened to an audio simulation of either a man propositioning her or of two men exchanging a denigrating remark about women. Participants listened to the recording twice; once they were asked to imagine the voice was that of their boss/supervisor and once that of their co-worker. The Multiple Affect Adjective Check List-Revised (MAACL-R) revealed a significant increase in dysphoria following all simulations. Interpersonal harassment by a man with higher organizational status increased dysphoria and anticipated assertiveness but lessened self-blame relative to all other experimental conditions.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Larntz, K. (1990). The influence of individual characteristics and severity of harassing behavior on reactions to sexual harassment.Sex Roles, 22, 305–325.Google Scholar
  2. Benson, D. J., & Thomson, G. E. (1982). Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest and gender stratification.Social Problems, 29, 236–251.Google Scholar
  3. Canadian Human Rights Commission; Research and Special Studies Branch (1983).Unwanted sexual attention and sexual harassment: Results of a survey of Canadians (Cat. No. HR21-14/1983). Minister of Supply and Services Canada (ISBN 0-662-52372-5).Google Scholar
  4. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. EEOC Policy Guidance (N-915.035.5168), October 25, 1988, pp. 6472–6489.Google Scholar
  5. Fain, T. C., & Anderton, D. L. (1987). Sexual harassment: Organizational context and diffuse status.Sex Roles, 5/6, 291–311.Google Scholar
  6. Gosselin, H. L. (1984). Sexual harassment on the job: Psychological, social and economic repercussions.Canada's Mental Health, 32(3, 21–24, 32.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Gruber, J. E. (1992). A typology of personal and environmental sexual harassment: Research and policy implications for the 1990s.Sex Roles, 26, 447–464.Google Scholar
  8. 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, 814–826.Google Scholar
  9. Gutek, B. A. (1985).Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  10. Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work.Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 55–74.Google Scholar
  11. Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Konrad, A. M. (1990). Predicting social-sexual behavior at work: A contact hypothesis.Academy of Management Journal, 33, 560–577.Google Scholar
  12. Hamilton, J. A., Alagna, S. W., King, L. S., & Lloyd, C. (1987). The emotional consequences of gender-based abuse in the workplace: New counselling programs for sex discrimination.Women and Therapy, 6(1–2), 155–182.Google Scholar
  13. Hoffman, F. L. (1986). Sexual harassment in academia: Feminist theory and institutional practice.Harvard Educational Review, 56, 105–121.Google Scholar
  14. 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.Google Scholar
  15. Kirk, R. E. (1982).Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  16. Lester, D., Banta, B., Barton, J., Elian, N., Mackiewicz, L., & Winkelried, J. (1986a). Is personality related to judgments about sexual harrassment?Psychological Reports, 59, 1114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Lester, D., Banta, B., Barton, J., Elian, N., Mackiewicz, L., & Winkelried, J. (1986b). Judgments about sexual harassment: Effects of the power of the harasser.Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 990.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Littler-Bishop, S., Seidler-Feller, D., & Opaluch, R. E. (1982). Sexual harassment in the workplace as a function of initiator's status: The case of airline personnel.Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 137–148.Google Scholar
  19. Malovich, N. J., & Stake, J. E. (1990). Sexual harassment on campus: Individual differences in attitudes and beliefs.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 63–81.Google Scholar
  20. Mynatt, C. R., & Allgeier, E. R. (1990). Risk factors, self-attributions, and adjustment problems among victims of sexual coercion.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 20, 130–153.Google Scholar
  21. Popovich, P. M., & Licata, B. J. (1987). A role model approach to sexual harassment.Journal of Management, 13, 149–161.Google Scholar
  22. Reilly, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K. (1982). The factorial survey: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus.Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 99–110.Google Scholar
  23. Renick, J. C. (1980). Sexual harassment at work: Why it happens, what to do about it.Personnel Journal, 59, 658–662.Google Scholar
  24. Salisbury, J., Ginorio, A. G., Remick, H., & Stringer, D. M. (1986). Counseling victims of sexual harassment.Psychotherapy, 23, 316–324.Google Scholar
  25. Schneider, B. E. (1987). Graduate women, sexual harassment, and university policy.Journal of Higher Education, 58, 46–65.Google Scholar
  26. Tangri, S. S., Burt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory models.Journal of Social Issues, 28(4), 33–54.Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1989). The identification and classification of reactions to sexual harassment.Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 1–14.Google Scholar
  29. Thomann, D. A., & Wiener, R. L. (1987). Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases.Sex Roles, 17, 573–591.Google Scholar
  30. United States Merit Systems Protection Board (1981).Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a Problem? Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  31. Vhay, M. (1988). The harm of asking: Toward a comprehensive treatment of sexual harassment.University of Chicago Law Review, 55, 328–362.Google Scholar
  32. Weber-Burdin, E., & Rossi, P. H. (1982). Defining sexual harassment on campus: A replication and extension.Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 111–120.Google Scholar
  33. Williams, K. B., & Cyr, R. R. (1992). Escalating commitment to a relationship: The sexual harassment trap.Sex Roles, 27, 47–72.Google Scholar
  34. Zuckerman, M., & Lubin, B. (1985).Manual for the Multiple Affect Adjective Check List Revised. San Diego, CA: Educational and Industrial Testing Service.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Sarah Barton Samoluk
    • 1
  • Grace M. H. Pretty
    • 1
  1. 1.Saint Mary's UniversityUSA
  2. 2.Department of PshychologyDalhousie UniversityHalifaxCanada

Personalised recommendations