Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 59, Issue 3–4, pp 240–253 | Cite as

Age Comparisons in Workplace Sexual Harassment Perceptions

  • Dawn M. Ohse
  • Margaret S. Stockdale
Original Article

Abstract

Few studies have systematically examined the influence of perceivers’ age on perceptions of sexual harassment. We sought to fill this gap, determine whether sexist attitudes mediate relations between age and sexual harassment perceptions, and whether relations between gender, sexist attitudes and perceptions are moderated by age. Results from an age-stratified sample of 965 students and staff employees at a US Midwestern university found a positive relationship between age and sexual harassment perceptions. Hostile sexism partially mediated this relationship, but age did not moderate correlations with gender or sexist attitudes. College-aged samples are less sensitive to harassment than older-aged samples, but the validity of other predictors of sexual harassment perceptions, such as gender and sexist attitudes, remains intact regardless of sample age.

Keywords

Sexual harassment perceptions Age differences Gender differences Ambivalent sexism 

References

  1. Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA, USA: Sage.Google Scholar
  2. Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 124, 409–416.Google Scholar
  3. Baron, R. M., & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator–mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 51, 1173–1182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bastian, L. D., Lancaster, A. R., & Reyst, H. E. (1996, December). Department of Defense 1995 sexual harassment survey (DMDC Report No. 96-014). Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  5. Beiner, T. M. (2005). Gender myths v. working realities: Using social science to reformulate sexual harassment law. New York: NYU Press.Google Scholar
  6. Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 33–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ, USA: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  8. De Judicibus, M., & McCabe, M. P. (2001). Blaming the target of sexual harassment: Impact of gender role, sexist attitudes, and work role. Sex Roles, 44, 401–417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. DeSouza, E., & Solberg, J. (2003). Incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment across cultures. In M. Paludi, & C. A. Paludi Jr. (Eds.) Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and legal perspectives (pp. 3–30). Westport, CT, USA: Praeger Publishers.Google Scholar
  10. Dillman, D. A. (2000). Mail and internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Ellerth, v. Burlington Industries, In. 524 U.S. 951 (1998).Google Scholar
  12. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (February 11, 2008). Sexual Harassment. Retrieved February 18, 2008, from http://www.eeoc.gov/types/sexual_harassment.html.
  13. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (January 31, 2007) Sexual Harassment Charges, EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1997–FY 2006. Retrieved July 12, 2007 from http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/harass.html.
  14. Etaugh, C., & Spiller, B. (1989). Attitudes toward women: Comparison of traditional-aged and older college students. Journal of College Student Development, 30, 41–46.Google Scholar
  15. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).Google Scholar
  16. Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn’t she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 117–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, C. A., & Donis, F. J. (1996). The relationship between age and gender in workers’ attitudes toward sexual harassment. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 130, 627–633.Google Scholar
  19. Foulis, D., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). Sexual harassment: Factors affecting attitudes and perception. Sex Roles, 37, 773–798.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Frazier, P. A., Cochran, C. C., & Olson, A. M. (1995). Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21–37.Google Scholar
  21. Furnham, A. (1985). The determinants of attitudes towards social security recipients. British Journal of Social Psychology, 24, 19–27.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating between hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  24. Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 28–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Gutek, B. A., & O’Connor, M. A. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 151–166.Google Scholar
  26. Gutek, B. A., O’Connor, M. A., Melancon, R., Stockdale, M. S., Geer, T. M., & Done, R. S. (1999). The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 596–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 510 U.S. 17 (1993).Google Scholar
  28. Hendrix, W. H. (2000). Perceptions of sexual harassment by student-employee classification, marital status, and female racial classification. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 15, 529–544.Google Scholar
  29. Hendrix, W. H., Rueb, J. D., & Steel, R. P. (1998). Sexual harassment and gender differences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13, 235–252.Google Scholar
  30. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lameiras-Fernández, M., Rodriguéz-Castro, Y., & González-Lorenzo, M. (2004). Evolution of hostile sexism and benevolent sexism in a Spanish sample. Social Indicators Research, 66, 197–211.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Legnick-Hall, M. (1995). Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique. Personnel Psychology, 48, 841–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Lerner, R. M., Pendorf, J., & Emery, A. (1971). Attitudes of adolescents and adults toward contemporary issues. Psychological Reports, 28, 139–145.Google Scholar
  34. Martell, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male–female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Mazer, D. B., & Percival, E. F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The relationship among perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of sexual harassment in university students. Sex Roles, 20, 135–137.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. McClelland, G. H., & Judd, C. M. (1993). Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects. Psychological Bulletin, 114, 376–390.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. McKinney, K. (1987). Age and gender differences in college students’ attitudes toward women: A replication and extension. Sex Roles, 17, 353–358.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).Google Scholar
  39. O’Connor, M. A. (1998). Gender and the definition of sexual harassment: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Department of Psychology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  40. O’Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., & Melançon, R. (2004). Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 69–95.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998).Google Scholar
  42. Padavic, I., & Orcutt, J. D. (1997). Perceptions of sexual harassment in the Florida legal system: A comparison of dominance and spillover explanations. Gender and Society, 11, 682–698.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Parish, W. L., Das, A., & Laumann, E. O. (2006). Sexual harassment of women in urban China. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 35, 411–425.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Parks, J. B., & Roberton, M. A. (1998). Contemporary arguments against nonsexist language: Blaubergs (1980) revisited. Sex Roles, 39, 445–461.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Pedhazur, E. J., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1991). Measurement, design, and analysis: An integrated approach. (pp. 545–589).Google Scholar
  46. Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Company, 584 F. Supp. 419 (1984).Google Scholar
  47. Rice, T. W., & Coates, D. L. (1995). Gender role attitudes in the southern United States. Gender & Society, 9, 744–756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Rosenthal, R. (1994). Parametric measures of effect size. In H. Cooper, & L. D. Hedges (Eds.) Handbook of Research Synthesis (pp. 231–244). New York: Russell Sage Foundation.Google Scholar
  49. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sigal, J., Gibbs, M. S., Goodrich, C., Rashid, T., Anjum, A., Hsu, D., et al. (2005). Cross-cultural reactions to academic sexual harassment: Effects of individualist vs. collectivist culture and gender of participants. Sex Roles, 52, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Slevin, K. F., & Wingrove, C. R. (1983). Similarities and differences among three generations of women in attitudes toward the female role in contemporary society. Sex Roles, 9, 609–624.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1972). Attitudes toward women scale: An objective instrument to measure attitudes toward the rights and roles of women in contemporary society. JSAS Catalog of Selected Documents in Psychology, 2, 66–67.Google Scholar
  53. Steininger, M., & Lesser, H. (1974). Sex and generation differences and similarities in social attitudes. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 21, 459–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Stockdale, M. S. (1993). The role of sexual misperceptions of women’s friendliness in an emerging theory of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 84–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Stockdale, M. S., O’Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., & Geer, T. M. (2002). The relationship between prior sexual abuse and reactions to sexual harassment: Literature review and empirical study. Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, 8, 64–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1987). A hierarchy of sexual harassment. The Journal of Psychology, 121, 599–605.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Thacker, R. A. (1996). A descriptive study of situational and individual influences upon individuals’ responses to sexual harassment. Human Relations, 49, 1105–1122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Twenge, J. M. (1997). Changes in masculine and feminine traits over time: A meta-analysis. Sex Roles, 36, 305–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem?. Washington, DC, USA: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  60. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work?: A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 75–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L. E., Russell, B., Mannen, K., & Gasper, C. (1997). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior, 12, 71–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of PsychologySouthern Illinois University CarbondaleCarbondaleUSA

Personalised recommendations