Sex Roles

, Volume 63, Issue 7–8, pp 451–462 | Cite as

Cat-Calls and Culpability: Investigating the Frequency and Functions of Stranger Harassment

  • Eric D. WesselmannEmail author
  • Janice R. Kelly
Original Article


Stranger harassment is defined as experiencing unwanted sexual attention from strangers in public contexts. We conducted two studies investigating the person and situation factors of U.S. undergraduate males that facilitate stranger harassment. Men from a large Midwestern university indicated their engagement in harassment both when alone and in groups, as well as their motives for this behavior in both settings. We also assessed their Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH). We predicted that high LSH men would be most likely to report engaging in harassment when in groups, compared to when alone. We also predicted these group behaviors would be motivated by anonymity and group bonding. Results support our hypotheses about the predictors and motives of stranger harassment in college men.


Stranger harassment Sexual harassment Group bonding Anonymity Cat-calls 



We would like to thank Nicole Capezza, Amanda Wesselmann, and two anonymous reviewers for their substantive comments on earlier versions of this paper.


  1. Abbey, A., McAuslan, P., & Thomson Ross, L. (1998). Sexual assault perpetration by college men: The role of alcohol, misperception of sexual intent, and sexual beliefs and experiences. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 17, 167–195.Google Scholar
  2. Asch, S. E. (1955). Opinions and social pressure. Scientific American, 193, 31–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and conformity: A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychological Monographs, 70, 1–70.Google Scholar
  4. Barak, A. (1997). Cross-cultural perspectives on sexual harassment. In W. T. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 263–300). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  5. Barak, A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Barak, A. & Kaplan, N. (1996). Relationships betweens men’s admitted sexual harassment behaviors and personal characteristics. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  7. Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). The attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768–781.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A., & Reno, R. R. (1991). A focus theory of normative conduct: A theoretical refinement and reevaluation of the role of norms in human behavior. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Coffey, B., & Woolworth, S. (2004). “Destroy the scum, and then neuter their families:” The web forum as a vehicle for community discourse? The Social Science Journal, 41, 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Craig, T. Y., Kelly, J. R., & Driscoll, D. (2001). Participant perceptions of potential employers. Sex Roles, 44, 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Crandall, C. S., & Eshleman, A. (2003). A justification-suppression model of expression and experience of prejudice. Psychological Bulletin, 129, 414–446.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Dall’Ara, E., & Maass, A. (1999). Studying sexual harassment in the laboratory: Are egalitarian women at higher risk? Sex Roles, 41, 681–704.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Diener, E. (1979). Deindividuation, self-awareness, and disinhibition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1160–1171.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Diener, E., Fraser, S. C., Beaman, A. L., & Kelem, R. T. (1976). Effects of deindividuation variables on stealing among Halloween trick-or-treaters. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 33, 178–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Driscoll, D. M., Kelly, J. R., & Henderson, W. L. (1998). Can perceivers identify likelihood to sexually harass? Sex Roles, 38, 557–588.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Fairchild, K., & Rudman, L. A. (2008). Everyday stranger harassment and women’s objectification. Social Justice Research, 21, 338–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Ford, T. E. (1997). Effects of stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans on person perception. Social Psychology Quarterly, 60, 266–278.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ford, T. E. (2000). Effects of sexist humor on tolerance of sexist events. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1094–1107.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ford, T. E., Wentzel, E. R., & Loion, J. (2001). Effects of exposure to sexist humor on perceptions of normative tolerance of sexism. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 677–691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Ford, T. E., Boxer, C. F., Armstrong, J., & Edel, J. R. (2008). More than “just a joke”: The prejudice-releasing function of sexist humor. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 159–170.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Forsyth, D. R. (1995). Norms. In A. S. R. Manstead & M. Hewstone (Eds.), The Blackwell encyclopedia of social psychology (pp. 412–417). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  22. Gardner, C. B. (1995). Passing by: Gender and public harassment. Berkley: University of California Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Graham, K., Bernards, S., Osgood, D. W., & Wells, S. (2006). Bad nights or bad bars? Multi-level analysis of environmental predictors of aggression in late-night large-capacity bars and clubs. Addiction, 101, 1569–1580.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. Hitlan, R. T., Pryor, J. B., Hesson-McInnis, M. S., & Olson, M. (2009). Antecedents of gender harassment: An analysis of person and situation factors. Sex Roles, 61, 794–807.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hopthrow, T., Abrams, D., Frings, D., & Hulbert, L. G. (2007). Groupdrink: The effects of alcohol on intergroup competitiveness. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 21, 272–276.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Hull, J. G. (1981). A self-awareness model of the causes and effects of alcohol consumption. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 90, 586–600.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56, 607–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Kelly, J. R., Murphy, J. D., Craig, T. Y., & Driscoll, D. M. (2005). The effect of nonverbal behaviors associated with sexual harassment proclivity on women's performance. Sex Roles, 53, 689–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kerr, N. L., & Levine, J. M. (2008). The detection of social exclusion: Evolution and beyond. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 12, 39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kiesler, S., Siegel, J., & McGuire, T. W. (1984). Social psychological aspects of computer-mediated communication. The American Psychologist, 39, 1123–1134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kirchner, T., Sayette, M. A., Cohn, J. F., Moreland, R. L., & Levine, J. M. (2006). Effects of alcohol on group formation among male social drinkers. Journal of Studies on Alcohol, 67, 785–793.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Latané, B. (1981). The psychology of social impact. The American Psychologist, 36, 343–356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Leader, T., Mullen, B., & Abrams, D. (2007). Without mercy: The immediate impact of group size on lynch mob atrocity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 1340–1352.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Lee, E., & Leets, L. (2002). Persuasive storytelling by hate groups online: Examining its effects on adolescents. The American Behavioral Scientist, 45, 927–957.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lenton, R., Smith, M. D., Fox, J., & Morra, N. (1999). Sexual harassment in public places: Experiences of Canadian women. The Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36, 517–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luthar, H. K., & Luthar, V. K. (2008). Likelihood to sexually harass: A comparison among American, Indian, and Chinese students. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8, 59–77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Lyman, P. (1995). The fraternal bonds as a joking relationship. A case study of the role of sexist jokes in male group bonding. In M. S. Kimmel & M. A. Messner (Eds.), Men’s lives (3rd ed., pp. 86–96). Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Maass, A., Cadinu, M., & Giusti, V. (2002). When men act together: Sexual harassment in dyads. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  41. Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853–870.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. Milgram, S., Bickman, L., & Berkowitz, L. (1969). Note on the drawing power of crowds of different size. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 13, 79–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Murphy, J. D., Driscoll, D. M., & Kelly, J. R. (1999). Differences in the nonverbal behavior of men who vary in the likelihood to sexually harass. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 113–128.Google Scholar
  44. Parks, K. A., & Miller, B. A. (1997). Bar victimization of women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 509–525.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (1998). Deindividuation and antinormative behavior: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 123, 238–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Pryor, J. B. (1998). The Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale. In C. M. Davis, W. H. Yarber, R. Bauserman, G. Schreer, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Sexuality-related measures: A compendium (pp. 295–298). Beverly Hills: Sage.Google Scholar
  48. Pryor, J. B., & Meyers, A. B. (2000). Men who sexually harass women. In L. B. Schlesinger (Ed.), Serial Offenders: Current thought, recent findings (pp. 207–228). Boca Raton: CRC Press LLC.Google Scholar
  49. Pryor, J. B., & Stoller, L. (1994). Sexual cognition processes in men who are high in the likelihood to sexually harass. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Pryor, J. B., & Wesselmann, E. D. (2010). Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale. In T. D. Fisher, C. M. Davis, W. L. Yarber, & S. L. Davis (Eds.), Handbook of sexually-related measures (3rd ed., pp. 328–330). New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  51. Pryor, J. B., & Whalen, N. J. (1997). A typology of sexual harassment: Characteristics of harassers and the social circumstances under which sexual harassment occurs. In W. T. O’Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 5–28). Needham Heights: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  52. Pryor, J. B., LaVite, C. M., & Stoller, L. M. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 68–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. (1995). A social psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 69–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Quinn, B. A. (2002). Sexual harassment and masculinity: The power and meaning of “girl watching”. Gender & Society, 16, 386–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Robb, L. A., & Doverspike, D. (2001). Self-reported proclivity to harass as a moderator of the effectiveness of sexual harassment prevention training. Psychological Reports, 88, 85–88.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. The Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Russell, B. L., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50, 565–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Schachter, S. (1951). Deviation, rejection, and communication. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 46, 190–207.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Sproull, L., & Kiesler, S. (1986). Reducing social context cues: Electronic mail in organizational communication. Management Science, 32, 1492–1512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Stall, R., McKusick, L., Wiley, J., Coates, T. J., & Ostrow, D. G. (1986). Alcohol and drug use during sexual activity and compliance with safe sex guidelines for AIDS: The AIDS behavioral research project. Health Education Quarterly, 13, 359–371.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Wesselmann, E., Pryor, J. B., & Palmieri, P. (2002, May) Using a modified Stroop procedure to assess associations between ideas about sex and power. Presentation at the meeting for the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago.Google Scholar
  63. Williams, K. D. (2009). Ostracism: Effects of being excluded and ignored. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (pp. 275–314). New York: Academic.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychological SciencesPurdue UniversityWest LafayetteUSA

Personalised recommendations