Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Is that a “No”? The Interpretation of Responses to Unwanted Sexual Attention

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this study, we used an interactive perspective to address the issue of responses to sexual harassment. We examined the effect of the consistency across time, consistency across types of advances, and assertiveness of a rejecting response on its perceived effectiveness. Participants were presented with scenarios that described responses to unwanted sexual attention and were required to rate the effectiveness of the responses for their clarity, content, and estimated effect on the future behavior of the perpetrator. The results show significant effects of consistency across time, consistency across types of advances, and assertiveness on perceived effectiveness of the response. As expected, an assertive response that was consistent across time and types of advances was perceived to be the most effective. This effect was found to be stronger for women than for men.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  • Afifi, W. A., & Lee, J. W. (2000). Balancing instrumental and identity goals in relationships: The role of request directness and request persistence in the selection of sexual resistance strategies. Communication Monographs, 67, 284–305.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baird, C. L., Bensko, N. L., Bell, P. A., Viney, W., & Woody, W. D. (1995). Gender influence on perceptions of hostile environment sexual harassment. Psychological Reports, 77, 79–82.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Benson, D. J., & Thompson, G. E. (1982). Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest, and gender stratification. Social Problems, 29, 236–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Berger, P., & Luckmann, T. (1966). The social construction of reality. New York: Anchor.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, L., & Perot, A. R. (1991). Reporting sexual harassment: Exploring a predictive model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 31–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cochran, C. C., Frazier, P. A., & Olson, A. M. (1997). Predictors of responses to unwanted sexual attention. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 207–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corr, P. J., & Jackson, C. J. (2001). Dimensions of perceived sexual harassment: Effects of gender and status/liking of protagonist. Personality and Individual Differences, 30, 525–539.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Firestone, J. M., & Harris, R. J. (2003). Perceptions of effectiveness of responses to sexual harassment in the US military, 1988 and 1995. Gender, Work and Organizations, 10, 42–64.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425–445.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, L. F., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (1989). The dimensions of sexual harassment: A structural analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 309–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormered, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, L. F., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 5–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, D. T., & Malone, P. S. (1995). The correspondence bias. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 21–38.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, J. E. (1989). How women handle sexual harassment: A literature review. Sociology and Social Research, 74, 3–9.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gruber, J. E., & Smith, M. (1995). Women's responses to sexual harassment: A multivariate analysis. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 301–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Boss.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, J., & Meltzoff, J. (1998). Perceptions of sexual harassment as a function of target's response type and observer's sex. Sex Roles, 39, 253–271.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunter, C., & McClelland, K. (1991). Honoring accounts for sexual harassment: A factorial survey analysis. Sex Roles, 24, 725–751.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jensen, I., & Gutek, B. (1982). Attributions and assignment of responsibility for sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 121–136.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1987). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In D. E. Kanouse & E. E. Jones (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, T. S., & Remland, M. S. (1992). Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 121–142.

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. (1972). Causal schemata and the attribution process. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.), Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 151–174). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., Ekeberg, S. E., & Dubois, L. Z. (1997). Determinants of target responses to sexual harassment: A conceptual framework. Academic of Management Review, 22, 687–729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krolokke, C. (1998). Women professors' assertive-empathic and non-assertive communication in sexual harassment situations. Women's Studies in Communication, 21, 91–100.

    Google Scholar 

  • Magley, V. J. (2002). Coping with sexual harassment: Re-conceptualizing women's resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 930–946.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Malamut, A. B., & Offerman, L. R. (2001). Coping with sexual harassment: Personal, environmental, and cognitive determinants. Journal of Applied Psychology, 6, 1152–1166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Osman, S. (2004). Victim resistance: Theory and data on understanding perceptions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 50, 267–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, E. R., Rosen, B., & Hiller, T. B., (1997). Breaking the silence: Creating user-friendly sexual harassment policies. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 10, 225–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson, D. R. (1988). Interpersonal goal conflict. In L. A. Pervin (Ed.), Goal concepts in personality and social psychology (pp. 327–363). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Nawyn, S. J. (1998). Doing power: The confluence of gender, race, and class in contrapower sexual harassment. Gender and Society, 12, 40–60.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ross, L. (1977). The intuitive scientist and his shortcomings. In L. Berkovitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 10, pp. 174–221). New York: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rubin, L. J., & Borgers, S. B. (1990). Sexual harassment in universities during the 1980s. Sex Roles, 23, 397–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rudman, L. A., Borgida, E., & Robertson, B. A. (1995). Suffering in silence: Procedural justice versus gender socialization issues in university sexual harassment grievance procedures. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 34, 519–541.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sbraga, T. P., & O'Donohue, W. (2000). Sexual harassment. Annual Review of Sex Research, 11, 258–286.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Sigal, J., Braden-Maguire, J., Patt, I., Goodrich, C., & Perrino, C. S. (2003). Effects of type of coping response, setting, and social context on reactions to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 48, 157–166.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon, W., & Gagnon, J. (1986). Sexual scripts: Permanence and change. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 15, 117–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smirles, K. E. (2004). Attributions of responsibility in cases of sexual harassment: The person and the situation. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 34, 342–365.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stockdale, M. S. (1998). The direct and moderating influences of sexual harassment pervasiveness, coping strategies, and gender on work related outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 521–535.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 15–30.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • York, K. M. (1989). Defining sexual harassment in workplaces: A policy-capturing approach. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 830–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Faculty of Social Welfare and Health Studies, The University of Haifa, Israel

    Dana Yagil, Orit Karnieli-Miller, Zvi Eisikovits & Guy Enosh

  2. Department of Human Services, University of Haifa, Haifa, 31905, Israel

    Dana Yagil

Authors
  1. Dana Yagil
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Orit Karnieli-Miller
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Zvi Eisikovits
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Guy Enosh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dana Yagil.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Yagil, D., Karnieli-Miller, O., Eisikovits, Z. et al. Is that a “No”? The Interpretation of Responses to Unwanted Sexual Attention. Sex Roles 54, 251–260 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9342-2

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9342-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation