Sex Roles

, Volume 53, Issue 3–4, pp 173–189 | Cite as

Self-Labeling Sexual Harassment

  • Vicki J. Magley
  • Ellen I. Shupe


This study was designed to examine personal, stimulus, and organizational factors that predict the self-labeling of sexual harassment. Hypotheses were developed based on the social cognitive schema framework, which suggests that the activation of a victim's schema of sexual harassment influences self-labeling incidents as sexual harassment. Results of a secondary analysis of the 1995 Department of Defense Gender Issues dataset generally supported the hypotheses in that self-labeling is a multi-faceted process. Several findings were in the opposite direction from that predicted (e.g., perceptions that the military was implementing sexual harassment policies were negatively associated with self-labeling). Alternative explanations for the complexity of the self-labeling process were also examined.


sexual harassment labeling schema military personnel 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Addelston, J., & Stirratt, M. (1996). The last bastion of masculinity: Gender politics at the Citadel. In C. Cheng (Ed.), Masculinities in organizations (pp. 54–76). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Arvey, R. D., & Cavanaugh, M. A. (1995). Using surveys to assess the prevalence of sexual harassment: Some methodological problems. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 39–52.Google Scholar
  3. Baldwin, T. T., & Ford, J. K. (1988). Transfer of training: A review and directions for future research. Personnel Psychology, 41, 63–105.Google Scholar
  4. Bastion, L. D., Lancaster, A. R., & Reyst, H. E. (1996). Department of Defense 1995 sexual harassment survey (Report No. 96-014). Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.Google Scholar
  5. Bondurant, B. (2001). University women's acknowledgment of rape: Individual, situational, and social factors. Violence Against Women, 7, 294–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Crosby, F., Clayton, S., Alksnis, O., & Hemker, K. (1986). Cognitive biases in the perception of discrimination: The importance of format. Sex Roles, 14, 637–646.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Crosby, F., Cordova, D. I., & Jaskar, K. (1993). On the failure to see oneself as disadvantaged: Cognitive and emotional components. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 87–104). Hertfordshire, England: Harvester Wheatsheaf.Google Scholar
  8. Culbertson, A. L., Rosenfeld, P., & Newell, C. E. (1993). Sexual harassment in the active-duty Navy: Findings from the 1991 Navy-wide survey (NPRDCTR-94-2). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  9. Department of the Navy. (1993). Resolving conflict. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  10. Dunivin, K. O. (1994). Military culture: Change and continuity. Armed Forces and Society, 20, 531–547.Google Scholar
  11. Ellis, S., Barak, A., & Pinto, A. (1991). Moderating effects of personal cognitions on experienced and perceived sexual harassment of women at the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1320–1337.Google Scholar
  12. Festinger, L. (1957). A theory of cognitive dissonance. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 543–557.Google Scholar
  14. Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  15. Fitzgerald, L. F. (1990, March). Assessing strategies for coping with sexual harassment: A theoretical/empirical approach. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology, Tempe, AZ.Google Scholar
  16. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). The antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425–445.Google Scholar
  18. Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: The SEQ-DoD. Military Psychology, 11, 243–263.Google Scholar
  19. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, A., Ormerod, A. J., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Magley, V. J. (1997). But was it really sexual harassment? Legal, behavioral, and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 5–28). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  21. Garsombke, D. J. (1988). Organizational culture dons the mantle of militarism. Organizational Dynamics, 17, 46–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Gelfand, M. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual harassment: A confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 47, 164–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gergen, M. (2001). Feminist reconstructions in psychology: Narrative, gender, and performance. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  24. Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women's development. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Giuffre, P. A., & Williams, C. L. (1994). Boundary lines: Labeling sexual harassment in restaurants. Gender & Society, 8, 378–401.Google Scholar
  26. Gruber, J. E. (1992, March). The sexual harassment experiences of women in nontraditional jobs: Results from cross-national research. Proceedings of the First National Conference on Sex and Power Issues in the Workplace, Bellevue, WA.Google Scholar
  27. Gutek, B. A., Murphy, R. O., & Douma, B. (2004). A review and critique of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ). Law and Human Behavior, 28, 457–482.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hamby, S. L., & Gray-Little, B. (2000). Labeling partner violence: When do victims differentiate among acts? Violence and Victims, 15, 173–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Hay, M. S., & Elig, T. W. (1999). The 1995 Department of Defense Sexual Harassment Survey: Overview and methodology. Military Psychology, 11, 233–242.Google Scholar
  30. Hunter-Williams, J., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. Military Psychology, 11, 303–328.Google Scholar
  31. Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1971). The actor and the observer: Perceptions of the causes of behavior. Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.Google Scholar
  32. Kahn, A. S., Mathie, V. A., & Torgler, C. (1994). Rape scripts and rape acknowledgement. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 18, 53–66.Google Scholar
  33. Kelley, H. H. (1967). Attribution theory in social psychology. Nebraska Symposium on Motivation, 15, 192–238.Google Scholar
  34. Koss, M. P. (1990). Changed lives: The psychological impact of sexual harassment. In M. Paludi (Ed.), Ivory power: Sexual harassment on campus (pp. 73–92). Albany, NY: SUNY Press.Google Scholar
  35. Lazarus, R. S., & Folkman, S. (1984). Stress, appraisal, and coping. New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  36. Lemert, E. M. (1951). Social pathology: A systematic approach to the theory of sociopathic behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  37. Lerner, M. J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum Press.Google Scholar
  38. Link, B. G., Cullen, F. T., Struening, E., Shrout, P. E., & Dohrenwend, B. P. (1989). A modified labeling theory approach to mental disorders: An empirical assessment. American Sociological Review, 54, 400–423.Google Scholar
  39. Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, M. (1999). Outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 390–402.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Marin, A. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (1999). Perceptions of sexual harassment victims as a function of labeling and reporting. Sex Roles, 41, 921–940.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Markel, K. S., & Frone, M. R. (1998). Job characteristics, work–school conflict, and school outcomes among adolescents: Testing a structural model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 277–287.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Martindale, C. (1991). Cognitive psychology: A neural-network approach. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  43. Mazzeo, S. E., Bergman, M. E., Buchanan, N. T., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2001). Situation-specific assessment of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 59, 120–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Moyer, R. S., & Nath, A. (1998). Some effects of brief training interventions on perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 333–356.Google Scholar
  45. Munson, L. J., Miner, A. G., & Hulin, C. (2001). Labeling sexual harassment in the military: An extension and replication. Journal of Applied Psychology, 56, 293–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Newcomb, M. D. (1990). What structural equation modeling can tell us about social support. In B. R. Sarason, I. G. Sarason, & G. R. Pierce (Eds.), Social support: An interactional view (pp. 26–63). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  47. Ottati, V., Triandis, H. C., & Hui, C. H. (1999). Subjective culture and the workplace: Comparing Hispanic and mainstream naval recruits. In Y. E. Lee, C. R. McCauley, & J. G. Draguns (Eds.), Personality and person perception across cultures (pp. 235–253). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  48. Ragins, B. R., & Scandura, T. A. (1995). Antecedents and work-related correlates of reported sexual harassment: An empirical investigation of competing hypotheses. Sex Roles, 32, 429–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rosen, L. N., & Martin, L. (1998). Incidence and perceptions of sexual harassment among male and female U.S. Army soldiers. Military Psychology, 10, 239–257.Google Scholar
  50. Shepela, S. T., & Levesque, L. L. (1998). Poisoned waters: Sexual harassment and the college climate. Sex Roles, 38, 589–612.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Stockdale, M. S., & Vaux, A. (1993). What sexual harassment experiences lead respondents to acknowledge being sexually harassed? A secondary analysis of a university survey. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 43, 221–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Stockdale, M. S., Vaux, A., & Cashin, J. (1995). Acknowledging sexual harassment: A test of alternative models. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 469–496.Google Scholar
  53. Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, C. P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium (Vol. 1, pp. 89–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  54. 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
  55. Thomas, M. D. (1995). Gender differences in conceptualizing sexual harassment (NPRDC-TR-95-5). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.Google Scholar
  56. Wilkerson, J. M. (1999). The impact of job level and prior training on sexual harassment labeling and remedy choice. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1605–1623.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologyUniversity of ConnecticutStorrs
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyGrand Valley State University

Personalised recommendations