Sex Roles

, Volume 52, Issue 3–4, pp 201–215 | Cite as

Cross-Cultural Reactions to Academic Sexual Harassment: Effects of Individualist vs. Collectivist Culture and Gender of Participants

  • Janet Sigal
  • Margaret S. Gibbs
  • Carl Goodrich
  • Tayyab Rashid
  • Afroze Anjum
  • Daniel Hsu
  • Carrol S. Perrino
  • Hale Bolak Boratav
  • Aggie Carson-Arenas
  • Berna van Baarsen
  • Joop van der Pligt
  • Wei-Kang Pan
Article

Abstract

Male and female university students from the United States, Canada, Germany, the Netherlands, Ecuador, Pakistan, the Philippines, Taiwan, and Turkey read a standardized scenario in which a male professor was accused of sexually harassing a female graduate student. Respondents from individualist countries judged the professor to be guilty of sexual harassment more often than did those from collectivist countries. Women rendered significantly more guilty judgments and assigned more severe punishments to the accused professor than did men. Implications for the individualist–collectivist classification system and cross-cultural research are discussed.

Keywords

sexual harassment culture gender 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Amnesty International. (1999). Annual Report on Taiwan (the Republic of China). Available from http://www.amnesty.org/ ailib/aireport/ar99/asa38.htm
  2. Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 527–547.Google Scholar
  3. 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.Google Scholar
  4. Boninger, D. S., Krosnick, J. A., & Berent, M. K. (1995). Origins of attitude importance: Self-interest, social identification and value relevance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 61–80.Google Scholar
  5. Chan, D. K. S., Tang, C. S. K., & Chan, W. (1999). Sexual harassment: A prelhninary analysis of its effects on Hong Kong Chinese women in the workplace and academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 661–672.Google Scholar
  6. Chia, R. C., Allred, L. J., & Jerzak, P. A. (1997). Attitudes toward women in Taiwan and China: Current status, problems, and suggestions for future research. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 137–150.Google Scholar
  7. Chia, R. C., Moore, J. L., Lam, K. N., Chuang, C. J., & Cheng, B. S. (1995). Locus of control and gender roles: A comparison of Taiwanese and American students. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 10, 379–393.Google Scholar
  8. Crocker, D., & Kalemba, V. (1999). The incidence and impact of women’s experiences of sexual harassment in Canadian workplaces. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36, 541–558.Google Scholar
  9. DeSouza, E. R., Pryor, J. B., & Hutz, C. S. (1998). Reactions to sexual harassment charges between North Americans and Brazilians. Sex Roles, 39, 913–928.Google Scholar
  10. 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.Google Scholar
  11. Goodman, L. A., Koss, M. P., & Russo, N. F. (1993). Violence against women: Physical and mental health effects: Part II. Research findings. Applied and Preventive Psychology, 2, 79–89.Google Scholar
  12. Graham, S., Werner, B., & Zucker, G. S. (1997). An attributional analysis of punishment goals and public reactions to O. J. Simpson. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 331–346.Google Scholar
  13. Gregory, J. (1995). Sexual harassment: Making the best use of European law. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 2, 421–440.Google Scholar
  14. Gutek, B. A. (1995). How subjective is sexual harassment? An examination of rater effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 447–467.Google Scholar
  15. Harned, M. S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). Understanding a link between sexual harassment and eating disorder symptoms: A mediational analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 1170–1181.Google Scholar
  16. Hong, C. (2004, August 21). Improvement needed: Eleven civic groups have joined forces to press for changes to laws on abuse and sexual harassment. Taipei Times, p. 2.Google Scholar
  17. Hofstede, G. (1980). Culture’s consequences. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  18. Kamal, A., & Tariq, N. (1997). Sexual harassment experience questionnaire for workplaces of Pakistan: Development and validation. Pakistan Journal of Psychological Research, 12, 1–20.Google Scholar
  19. Lenton, R., Smith, M. D., Fox, J., & Morra, N. (1999). Sexual harassment in public places: Experiences of Canadian women. Canadian Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 36, 517–540.Google Scholar
  20. Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study. Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society, 8, 296–319.Google Scholar
  21. Maatman, G. (2002). A global view of sexual harassment: Global human resource strategies. Available from http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3495/is_7_ai_63846245
  22. Netherlands (2004). The country reports on human rights practices, 2003. Bureau of Democracy. Human Rights and Labor. Available from http://www.state.gov/g/drl/rls/hrrpt/2003/27856.htm
  23. News24.com (2004, September 15). Turkey: “No” to adultery laws. Available from http://news24.com/News24/World/News/0,2-10-1462_1589480.htm
  24. Marlatt, G. A., & Tapert, S. F. (1993). Harm reduction: Reducing the risks of addictive behaviors. In J. S. Baer, G. A. Marlatt, & R. J. McMahon (Eds.), Addictive behaviors across the lifespan (pp. 243–273). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  25. Oyserman, D., Coon, H. M., & Kemmelmeier, M. (2002). Rethinking individualism and collectivism: Evaluation of theoretical assumptions and meta-analyses. Psychological Bulletin, 128, 3–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Pryor, J. B., DeSouza, E. R., Fitness, J., Hutz, C., Kumpf, M., Lubbert, K., et al. (1997). Gender differences in the interpretation of social-sexual behavior: A cross-cultural perspective on sexual harassment. Journal of Cross Cultural Psychology, 28, 509–534.Google Scholar
  27. Shupe, E. I., Cortina, L. M., Ramos, A., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Salisbury, J. (2002). The incidence and outcomes of sexual harassment among Hispanics and non-Hispanic White women: A comparison across levels of cultural affiliation. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 26, 298–308.Google Scholar
  28. Sigal, J., & Jabcobsen, H. (1999). A cross-cultural exploration of factors affecting reactions to sexual harassment: Attitudes and policies. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5, 760–785.Google Scholar
  29. Struch, N., Schwartz, S. H., & van der Kloot, W. A. (2002). Meaning of basic values for women and men: A cross-cultural analysis. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16–28.Google Scholar
  30. Tang, C. S., Yik, M. S. M., Cheung, F. M. C., Choi, P., & Au, K. (1996). Sexual harassment of Chinese college students. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 25, 201–215.Google Scholar
  31. Timmerman, G., & Bajema, C. (1999). Sexual harassment in northwest Europe: A cross-cultural comparison. The European Journal of Women’s Studies, 6, 419–439.Google Scholar
  32. Trommsdorf, G., & Iwawaki, S. (1989). Students’ perceptions of socialization and gender role in Japan and Germany. International Journal of Behavioral Development, 12, 485–493.Google Scholar
  33. United Kingdom Home Office. (July, 2003). Ecuador: Asylum and appeals policy directorate. Available from www.ind.homeoffice.gov.uk/ind/en/home/laws_policy/country =y_ information/operation_guidance_ecuador.htm
  34. U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment of federal workers: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  35. U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1995). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Trends, progress and continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  36. van Baarsen, B., & van der Pligt, J. (1998). Effect van sekse en werkstatus op de beoordeling van seksuele intimidatie op het werk: implicatie voor interventie enbeleid (Effect of gender and status on judgments of academic sexual harassment: Implications of policy and interventions). Sociale Interventie, 7, 20–25.Google Scholar
  37. Voronov, M., & Singer, J. A. (2002). The myth of individualism–collectivism: A critical review. Journal of Social Psychology, 142, 461–480.Google Scholar
  38. Wasti, S. A., Bergman, M. E., Glomb, T. M., & Drasgow, F. (2000). Test of the cross-cultural generalizability of a model of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 766–778.Google Scholar
  39. Wasti, S. A., & Cortina, L. M. (2002). Coping in context: Sociocultural determinants of responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 394–405.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Janet Sigal
    • 1
    • 8
  • Margaret S. Gibbs
    • 1
  • Carl Goodrich
    • 1
  • Tayyab Rashid
    • 1
  • Afroze Anjum
    • 1
  • Daniel Hsu
    • 1
  • Carrol S. Perrino
    • 2
  • Hale Bolak Boratav
    • 3
  • Aggie Carson-Arenas
    • 4
  • Berna van Baarsen
    • 5
  • Joop van der Pligt
    • 6
  • Wei-Kang Pan
    • 7
  1. 1.Fairleigh Dickinson UniversityTeaneck
  2. 2.Morgan State UniversityBaltimore
  3. 3.Istanbul Bilgi UniversityIstanbulTurkey
  4. 4.Angeles University FoundationAngeles Citythe Philippines
  5. 5.VU University Medical CentreAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  6. 6.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  7. 7.Modern Women’s FoundationTaipeiTaiwan
  8. 8.Psychology DepartmentFairleigh Dickinson UniversityTeaneck

Personalised recommendations