Skip to main content
Log in

Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study replicated and extended research on the effects of observer characteristics (i.e., gender and traditional vs. less traditional attitudes) on attributions of responsibility in a case of sexual harassment. Participants (120 males, 120 females) were randomly assigned to one of six conditions that varied the gender of the victim and the victim's reaction. A sexual harassment scenario involving a university student and professor of the opposite gender was presented as an audiotape of the victim's account. Participants with less traditional attitudes attributed less responsibility to the victim than did participants with traditional attitudes. Females attributed more responsibility to the perpetrator and the victim of the same gender than did males. Victim reaction interacted with participant gender; males responded in a manner that was consistent with the reaction manipulation, whereas females attributed less responsibility to the self-blaming victim than to either the perpetrator-blaming or control victims. The results are discussed in the light of attribution theory and previous research.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Bulman, R. J., & Wortman, C. B. Attributions of blame and coping in the “real world”: Severe accident victims react to their lot. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1977, 35, 351–363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cammaert, L. P. How widespread is sexual harassment on campus? International Journal of Women's Studies, 1985, 8, 388–396.

    Google Scholar 

  • Coates, D., Wortman, C. B., & Abbey, A. Reactions to victims. In I. H. Frieze, D. Bar-Tel, & J. S. Carroll (Eds.), New approaches to social problems. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A. A psychological examination of sexual harassment. In B. A. Gutek (Ed.), Sex role stereotyping and affirmative action policy. Los Angeles: Institute of Industrial Relations, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1983, 22, 30–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janoff-Bulman, R. Characterlogical versus behavioral self-blame: Inquiries into depression and rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1979, 37, 1798–1809.

    Google Scholar 

  • Janoff-Bulman, R. Esteem and control bases of blame: “Adaptive” strategies for victims versus observers. Journal of Personality, 1982, 50, 180–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, I. W., & Gutek, B. A. Attribution and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38, 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. S., Remland, M. S., & Brunner, C. C. Effects of employment relationship, response of recipient and sex of rater on perceptions of sexual harassment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 1987, 65, 55–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krulewitz, J. E. Reactions to rape victims: Effects of rape circumstances, victim's emotional response, and sex of helper. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 1982, 29, 645–654.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J., & Miller, D. T. Just world research and the attribution process: Looking back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 1978, 85, 1030–1051.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lerner, M. J., & Simmons, C. Observer's reaction to the “innocent victim”: Compassion or rejection? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1966, 4, 203–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K. A factorial survey: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38, 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaver, K. G. Defensive attribution: Effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1970, 14, 101–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shaw, J. I., & McMartin, J. A. Personal and situational determinants of attribution of responsibility for an accident. Human Relations, 1977, 30, 95–107.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smith, E. R., Ferree, M. M., & Miller, F. D. A short scale of attitudes toward feminism. Representative Research in Social Psychology, 1975, 6, 51–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tangri, S. S., Burt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of Social issues, 1982, 38, 33–54.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber-Burdin, E., & Rossi, P. H. Defining sexual harassment on campus: A replication and extension. Journal of Social issues, 1982, 38, 111–120.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Valentine-French, S., Radtke, H.L. Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles 21, 545–555 (1989). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289103

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00289103

Keywords

Navigation