Sex Roles

, Volume 56, Issue 11–12, pp 811–822 | Cite as

Organizational Responses for Preventing and Stopping Sexual Harassment: Effective Deterrents or Continued Endurance?

  • Camille Gallivan NelsonEmail author
  • Jane A. Halpert
  • Douglas F. Cellar
Original Article


Survey data from a student population of experienced workers was used to examine perceptions of organizational responses to sexual harassment. Results revealed significant differences in the perceived seriousness of gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. Moreover, women viewed all three types of harassment as being significantly more serious than men. Terminating perpetrators’ employment, providing a verbal/written reprimand, and mandating an apology were rated as being the most common organizational responses to sexual harassment. A significant positive relationship existed between perceived organizational response severity and effectiveness in combating harassment. Results partially supported the notion that more severe responses are associated with greater effectiveness in communicating organizational intolerance of harassment. Contrary to hypotheses, ratings of organizational response effectiveness and appropriateness were not dependent upon harassment type. Further, organizational responses that involved transferring or reassigning victims were not viewed as less severe punishment for perpetrators than were most responses that involved the perpetrator directly.


Sexual harassment Intervention Punishment Victimization 


  1. Adams-Roy, J., & Barling, J. (1998). Predicting the decision to confront or report sexual harassment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 329–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  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.CrossRefGoogle 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, 33–58.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Brown, T. D. (1993). When counseling is not enough: The ninth circuit requires employers to discipline sexual harassers. Washington University Law Quarterly, 71, 901–919.Google Scholar
  5. Cummings, K. M., & Armenta, M. (2002). Penalties for peer sexual harassment in an academic context: The influence of harasser gender, participant gender, severity of harassment, and the presence of bystanders. Sex Roles, 47, 273–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. DeSouza, E. R., Pryor, J., & Hutz, C. S. (1998). Reactions to sexual harassment charges between North Americans and Brazilians. Sex Roles, 39, 913–928.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. DeSouza, E. R., & Solberg, J. (2004). Women’s and men’s reactions to man-to-man sexual harassment: Does the sexual orientation of the victim matter? Sex Roles, 50, 623–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1980). Guidelines on discrimination because of sex. Federal Register, 45, 74676–74677.Google Scholar
  9. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1990). Policy guidance on current issues of sexual harassment. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from
  10. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1999). Enforcement guidance: Vicarious employer liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from
  11. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Fitzgerald, L., F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 3, pp. 141–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI.Google Scholar
  15. Franklin, E. D. (1999). Maneuvering through the labyrinth: The employer’s paradox in responding to hostile environment sexual harassment—a proposed way out. Fordham Law Review, 67, 1517–1608.Google Scholar
  16. Gilliland, S. W., & Steiner, D. D. (2001). Causes and consequences of applicant perceptions of unfairness. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (vol. 2, pp. 175–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  17. Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., & Drasgow, R. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Lee, L. D., & Greenlaw, P. S. (2000). Employer liability for employee sexual harassment: A judicial policy-making study. Public Administration Review, 60, 123–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.Google Scholar
  21. Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, M. (1999). Outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 390–402.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. O’Connor, M. A. (1998). Gender and the definition of sexual harassment: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona.Google Scholar
  23. O’Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T., M., Melancon, R. (2004). Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law & Human Behavior, 28, 69–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Padgitt, S. C., & Padgitt, J. S. (1986). Cognitive structure of sexual harassment: Implications for university policy. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 34–39.Google Scholar
  25. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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
  27. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 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, 17, 519–541.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Rusbasan, D., Gallivan, C. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003, April). Transfer as an effective organizational tactic to impede sexual harassment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.Google Scholar
  30. Salisbury, J., & Jaffe, F. (1990). Individual training of sexual harassers. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Sexual harassment on campuses: Abusing the ivory power (pp. 141–152). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.Google Scholar
  31. Sigal, J., Gibbs, M. S., Goodrich, C., Rashid, T., Anjum, A., Hsu, D., et al. (2005). Cross-cultural reactions to academic sexual harassment: Effects of individualist vs. collectivist culture and gender of participants. Sex Roles, 52, 201–215.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  33. Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642–655.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Wiener, R. L., Winter, R., Rogers, M., & Arnot, L. (2004). The effects of prior workplace behavior on subsequent sexual harassment judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 47–67.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Willert, S. J. (1998). Sexual harassment: Defining employers’ rights. For the Defense, 40(11), 8–11.Google Scholar
  36. Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. Military Psychology, 11, 303–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Camille Gallivan Nelson
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jane A. Halpert
    • 1
  • Douglas F. Cellar
    • 1
  1. 1.DePaul UniversityChicagoUSA

Personalised recommendations