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.
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- 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.Google Scholar
- Charney, D., & Russell, R. (1994). An overview of sexual harassment.American Journal of Psychiatry, 151 10–17.Google Scholar
- Crichton, M. (1992).Disclosure. New York: Random House.Google Scholar
- Crooks, R. & Baur, K. (1993).Our sexuality (5th ed.). Redwood City, CA: Benjamin/Cummins.Google Scholar
- Faley, R. (1982). Sexual harassment: A critical review of legal cases with general principles and preventive measures.Personnel Psychology, 35 583–600.Google Scholar
- Jones, T., & Remland, M. (1992). Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment.Sex Roles, 27 121–141.Google Scholar
- Kelley, H., & Michela, J. (1984). Attribution theory and research.Annual Review of Psychology, 31 457–502.Google Scholar
- 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
- Merit Systems Protection Board, (1988).Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
- Mischel, W. (1993).Introduction to personality (5th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: Harcourt, Brace, & Jovanovich.Google Scholar
- Pryor, J. (1985). The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment.Sex Roles, 13 273–286.Google Scholar
- Reilly, M., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students.Sex Roles, 15 333–358.Google Scholar
- Terpstra, D., & Baker, D. (1986). A framework for the study of sexual harassment.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7 17–34.Google Scholar
- Terpstra, D., & Baker, D. (1987). Psychological and demographic correlates of perceptions of sexual harassment.Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 112 461–478.Google Scholar