Abstract
In this study a hierarchical legal model was presented to explain how observers arrive at decisions regarding culpability and disciplinary action in cases of alleged sexual harassment. Subjects read a vignette describing a sexual advance. Information about the flagrance of the request, the victim's response, and the frequency of similar encounters were manipulated in order to examine their impact on dimensions of culpability. Subjects then completed a series of Likert-type scales designed to assess the critical dimensions in the model. The findings provided support for the model, suggesting that subject's decisions regarding physical causality and psychological causality are critical factors in attribution of responsibility and that these attributions impact subsequent disciplinary decisions.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Brewer, M. B. Further beyond nine to five: An integration and further directions. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38(4), 149–158.
Brewer, W. F., & Nakumura, G. G. The nature and function of schema. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), The handbook of social cognition Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1984.
Bundy v. Jackson, 24 FEP Cases 1155, 1981.
Calhoun, L. G., Selby, J. W., Cann, A., & Keller, G. T. The effects of victim physical attractiveness and sex of respondent on social reactions to victims of rape. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1978, 17, 191–192.
Cann, A., Calhoun, L. G., & Selby, J. W. Attributing responsibility to the victim of rape: Influence of information regarding post sexual experience. Human Relations 1979, 32(1), 57–67.
Cohen, A. G., & Gutek, B. A. Dimensions of perceptions of social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Sex Roles, 1985, 13(5), 317–327.
Collins, E. G. C., & Boldgett, T. B. Sexual harassment: Some see it....some won't. Harvard Business Review, 1981, 59(2), 76–95.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commision. Discrimination because of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; Adoption of interim guidelines. Federal Registrar, 1980, 45(72), 25024–25025.
Fancher, M. D., & McCulloch, K.J. Sexual harassment in the work place: What should employers do? EEO TODAY, 1978, 5(1), 38–46.
Farley, L. Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1978.
Fincham, F. D., & Jaspars, J. M. Attributions of responsibility: From man the scientist to man as lawyer. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology, 13. New York: Academic Press, 1980.
Groth, N. A. Men who rape: The psychology of the offender. New York: Plenum Plublishing, Corporation, 1979.
Gutek, B. A. Sex and the workplace: The impact of social behavior and harassment on women, men and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, Inc., 1985.
Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1983, 22, 30–48.
Gutek, B. A., Nakamura, C. Y., Gahart, M., Handschumacher, I. W., & Russel, D. Sexuality and the workplace. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1980, 1(3), 255–265.
Hamilton, V. L. Individual differences in ascriptions of responsibility, guilt, and appropriate punishment. In G. Berment, C. Nemeth, & N. Vidmar (Eds.) Psychology and the law. New York: Lexington Books, 1976.
Hart, H., & Honoré, A. Causation in law. London and New York: Oxford University Press, 1959.
James, J. Sexual harassment. Public personnel Management, 1981, 10(4), 402–407.
Jensen, I., & Gutek, B. A. Attributions and assignments of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38(4), 121–136.
Karekar, S., & Kolsawalla, M. B. Responsibility of a rape victim in relation to her respectability, attractiveness and provocativeness. The Journal of Psychology, 1980, 112, 153–154.
Kanekar, S., & Kolsawalla, M. B. Responsibility of a rape victim in relation to her respectability, attractiveness and preventiveness. The Journal of Social Psychology, 1980, 112, 153–154.
Kelley, H. H. Causal schemata and the attribution process. Morristown NJ: General Learning Press, 1972.
Kirk, R. E. Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Co., 1982.
Littler-Bishop, S., Seidler-Feller, D., & Opaluch, R. E. Sexual harassment in the workplace as a function of initiator status: The case of airline personnel. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38(4), 137–148.
Livingston, J. A. Responses to sexual harassment on the job: Legal, organizational and individual actions. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38(4), 5–22.
Merrotor Savings Bank, FSB V. Vinson, EPD 36159, 1986.
Mozenter, F. L. Sexual harassment in the workplace: An annotated bibliography. Victimology, 1981, 6(1–4) 120–136.
Powell, G. N. Effects of sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 1986, 14, 9–19.
Pryor, J. B. The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 1985, 13, 273–287.
Reilly, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K. The factorial survey technique: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38(4), 99–110.
Renick, J. C. Sexual harassment at work. Personnel Journal, 1980, 59(8), 658–662.
Rumsey, M. G., & Rumsey, J. M. A case of rape: Sentencing judgment of males and females. Psychological Report, 1977 41, 459–465.
Safran, C. Sexual harassment. The view from the top. Redbook, March 1981, pp. 46–51.
Schneider, B. Consciousness about sexual harassment among heterosexual and lesbian women workers. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38(4), 75–97.
Selby, J. W., Calhoun, L. G., & Brock, T. A. Sex differences in social perception of rape victims. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 1977, 3, 412–415.
Shaw, M. E., & Reitan, H. T. Attributions of responsibility as a basis for sanctioning behavior. British Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 1969, 8, 217–226.
Sherman, M. F., & Smith, R. J. Was she really sexually harassed? The effects of a victim's age and job status of the initiator. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Eastern Psychological Association, April 1983.
Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. Schematic bases of social information processing. In E. T. Higgins, P. Hermin, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), The Ontario Symposium on Personality and Social Psychology (Vol.1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, 1981.
Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. Relationship of the nature of sexual harassment evidence and pre-filing actions to sexual harassment charge outcomes. In Proceedings of the 46th Annual Academy of Management, 1986.
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, D. C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1981.
Weber-Burdin, E., & Rossi, P. H. Defining sexual harassment on campus: A replication and extension. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38(4), 111–120.
Wiener, R. L., & Rhinehart, N. Psychological causality in attribution of responsibility for rape. Sex Roles 1986, 14, 369–381.
Wiener, R. L., & Vodanovich, S. J. The evaluation of culpability for rape: A model of legal decision making. Journal of Psychology, 1986, 120(5), 489–500.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Thomann, D.A., Wiener, R.L. Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles 17, 573–591 (1987). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287737
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00287737