Abstract
We introduce a new inventory measuring sex-based harassment intentions and threat perceptions grounded in gender status threat theories (Berdahl, 2007; Stephan et al., 2016). In Study 1 (N = 568 men), an initial Sex-Based Harassment Inventory (SBHI) was developed with 12 scenarios depicting gender status threats to which respondents rated the likelihood to engage in gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, supportive conduct, and their perceptions of threat. The final version of the SBHI contained six scenarios with four items each. Gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention intentions loaded on a single, reliable factor, labeled harassment intentions. Two other factors measured threat perceptions and supportive behavior intentions. harassment intentions correlated significantly with threat perceptions, likelihood to sexually harass (Pryor, 1987), hostile and benevolent sexism (Glick & Fiske, 1996), and masculine identification (Glick et al., 2015). In Study 2 (N = 391 men), a non-threat version of the SBHI was compared to the threat version. Threat perceptions mediated the effect of scenario version on harassment intentions, which was stronger at moderate to high levels of hostile sexism and social dominance orientation. Consistent with Berdahl’s theory, these studies present promising initial evidence for the validity of the final version of the SBHI and the links between gender status threat and sex-based harassment intentions to gender status threat.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Aronson, E., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1968). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Arsonson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (pp. 1–79). Addison-Wesley.
Bartling, C. A., & Eisenman, R. (1993). Sexual harassment proclivities in men and women. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 31(3), 189–192. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03337321
Berdahl, J. L. (2007). Harassment based on sex: Protecting social status in the context of gender hierarchy. Academy of Management Review, 32(2), 641–658. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2007.24351879
Berdahl, J. L., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R. W., & Williams, J. C. (2018). Work as a masculinity contest. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 422–448. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12289
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(4), 527–547. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.1996.tb00320.x
Bingham, S. G., & Burleson, B. R. (1996). The development of a sexual harassment proclivity scale: Construct validation and relationship to communication competence. Communication Quarterly, 44(3), 308–325. https://doi.org/10.1080/01463379609370020
Bobbio, A., & Manganelli, A. M. (2011). Measuring social desirability responding. A short version of Paulhus’ BIDR 6. Testing, Psychometrics Methodology in Applied Psychology, 18(2), 117–135. https://doi.org/10.4473/TPM.18.2.4
Buchanan, N. T., & Ormerod, A. J. (2002). Racialized sexual harassment in the lives of African American women. Women & Therapy, 25(3–4), 107–124. https://doi.org/10.1300/j015v25n03_08
Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of social identity threat. In: Ellemers N, Spears R, Doosje B, (Eds), Social identity: Context, commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Blackwell. https://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.160455
Cortina, L. M. (2001). Assessing sexual harassment among Latinas: Development of an instrument. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 7(2), 164–181. https://doi.org/10.1037/1099-9809.7.2.164
Cuesta Izquierdo, M., & Fonseca Pedrero, E. (2014). Estimating the reliability coefficient of tests in presence of missing values. Psicothema, 26(4), 516–523. https://doi.org/10.7334/psicothema2014.98
Dall’Ara, E., & Maass, A. (1999). Studying sexual harassment in the laboratory: Are egalitarian women at higher risk? Sex Roles, 41, 681–704. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018816025988
DeCoster, S., Estes, S. B., & Mueller, C. W. (1999). Routine activities and sexual harassment in the workplace. Work and Occupations, 26(1), 21–49. https://doi.org/10.1177/0730888499026001003
Diehl, C., Rees, J., & Bohner, G. (2012). Flirting with disaster: Short-term mating orientation and hostile sexism predict different types of sexual harassment. Aggressive Behavior, 38(6), 521–531. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01255.x
Dinh, T., Mikalouski, L., & Stockdale, M. (2022, in press). When “Good People” sexually harass: the role of power and moral licensing on sexual harassment perceptions and intentions. Psychology of Women. Manuscript available at: https://osf.io/25hvd/
Enders, C. K. (2010). Applied missing data analysis. The Guilford Press.
Fishbein, M. (1973). The prediction of behavior from attitudinal variables. In C. D. Mortensen & K. K. Sereno (Eds.), Advances in communication research (pp. 3–31). Harper and Row.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Cortina, L. M. (2018). Sexual harassment in work organizations: A view from the 21st century. In C. B Travis, J. W. White, A. Rutherford, W. S. Williams, S. L. Cook, & K. F. Wyche (Eds.), APA handbook of the psychology of women: Perspectives on women's private and public lives (pp. 215–234). American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/0000060-012
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(4), 578–589. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.82.4.578
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17(4), 425–445. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1704_2
Fitzgerald, L. F., Magley, V. J., Drasgow, F., & Waldo, C. R. (1999). Measuring sexual harassment in the military: The sexual experiences questionnaire (SEQ–DoD). Military Psychology, 11(3), 243–263. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327876mp1103_3
Fornell, C., & Larcker, D. F. (1981). Evaluating structural equation models with unobservable variables and measurement error. Journal of Marketing Research, 18(1), 39–50. https://doi.org/10.1177/002224378101800104
Glick, P., Berdahl, J., & Alonso, N. (2018). Development and validation of the masculinity contest culture scale. Journal of Social Issues, 74, 449–476. https://doi.org/10.1111/12280
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
Glick, P., Wilkerson, M., & Cuffe, M. (2015). Masculine identity, ambivalent sexism, and attitudes toward gender subtypes: Favoring masculine men and feminine women. Social Psychology, 46(4), 210–217. https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000228
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K. T., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71(3), 309–328. https://doi.org/10.1006/obhd.1997.2728
Gmel, G. (2001). Imputation of missing values in the case of a multiple item instrument measuring alcohol consumption. Statistics in Medicine, 20(15), 2369–2381. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.837
Hayes, A. F. (2018). Partial, conditional, and moderated mediation: Quantification, inference, and interpretation. Communication Monographs, 85(1), 4–40. https://doi.org/10.1080/03637751.2017.1352100
Ho, A. K., Sidanius, J., Kteily, N., Sheehy-Skeffington, J., Pratto, F., Henkel, K. E., Foels, R., & Stewart, A. L. (2015). The nature of social dominance orientation: Theorizing and measuring preferences for intergroup inequality using the new SDO7 scale. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 109(6), 1003–1028. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000033
Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organizational influences on sexual harassment. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace (Vol. 5, pp. 127–150). Sage.
Kelly, A. J., Dubbs, S. L., & Barlow, F. K. (2015). Social dominance orientation predicts heterosexual men’s adverse reactions to romantic rejection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 44(4), 903–919. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10508-014-0348-5
Klonis, S., Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. (2005). Internal and external motivation to respond without sexism. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(9), 1237–1249. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167205275304
Langhout, R. D., Bergman, M. E., Cortina, L. M., Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & Williams, J. H. (2005). Sexual harassment severity: Assessing situational and personal determinants and outcomes. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 35(5), 975–1007. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.2005.tb02156.x
Leskinen, E. A., Cortina, L. M., & Kabat, D. B. (2011). Gender harassment: Broadening our understanding of sex-based harassment at work. Law and Human Behavior, 35(1), 25–39. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10979-010-9241-5
Lim, S., & Cortina, L. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90(3), 483–496. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.3.483
Litman, L., Robinson, J., & Abberbock, T. (2017). TurkPrime.com: A versatile crowdsourcing data acquisition platform for the behavioral sciences. Behavioral Research, 49(2), 433–442. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-016-0727-z
Lonsway, K. A., Cortina, L. M., & Magley, V. J. (2008). Sexual harassment mythology: Definition, conceptualization, and measurement. Sex Roles, 58(9), 599–615. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9367-1
Luthar, H. K., & Luthar, V. K. (2008). Likelihood to sexually harass: A comparison among American, Indian, and Chinese students. International Journal of Cross Cultural Management, 8(1), 59–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/1470595807088322
Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(5), 853–870. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.5.853
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2018). Sexual harassment of women: Climate, culture, and consequences in academic sciences, engineering, and medicine. The National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24994
O’Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., & Melançon, R. (2004). Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law and Human Behavior, 28(1), 69–95. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:lahu.0000015004.39462.6e
Ohse, D. M., & Stockdale, M. S. (2008). Age comparisons in workplace sexual harassment perceptions. Sex Roles, 59(3–4), 240–253.https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9438-y
O’Leary-Kelly, A. M., Tiedt, P., & Bowes-Sperry, L. (2004). Answering accountability questions in sexual harassment: Insights regarding harassers, targets, and observers. Human Resource Management Review, 14(1), 85–106. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hrmr.2004.02.005
Page, T. E., Pina, A., & Giner-Sorolla, R. (2016). It was only harmless banter! The development and preliminary validation of the moral disengagement in sexual harassment scale. Aggressive Behavior, 42(3), 254–273. https://doi.org/10.1002/ab.21621
Paulhus, D. L. (2002). Socially desirable responding: The evolution of a construct. In H. Braun, D. N. Jackson, & D. E. Wiley (Eds.), The role of constructs in psychological and educational measurement (pp. 67–88). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17(5), 269–290. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00288453
Pryor, J. B., LaVite, C. M., & Stoller, L. M. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42(1), 68–83. https://doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1993.1005
Raver, J. L., & Gelfand, M. J. (2005). Beyond the individual victim: Linking sexual harassment, team processes, and team performance. Academy of Management Journal, 48(3), 387–400. https://doi.org/10.5465/amj.2005.17407904
Rosseel, Y (2012). lavaan: An R package for structural equation Modeling. Journal of Statistical Software, 48(2), 1–36. https://www.jstatsoft.org/v48/i02/
Russell, B. L., & Trigg, K. Y. (2004). Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles, 50(7), 565–573. https://doi.org/10.1023/B:SERS.0000023075.32252.fd
Shultz, K. S., Whitney, D. J., & Zickar, M. J. (2014). Measurement theory in action: Case studies and exercises. (2nd ed., pp. 83–94). Routledge.
Siebler, F., Sabelus, S., & Bohner, G. (2008). A refined computer harassment paradigm: Validation, and test of hypotheses about target characteristics. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32(1), 22–35. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00404.x
Sierra, J. J., Compton, N., & Frias-Gutierrez, K. M. (2008). Brand response-effects of perceived sexual harassment in the workplace. Journal of Business and Management, 14(2), 175–197. https://doi.org/10.1186/2F2193-1801-3-215
Silvia, E. S. M., & MacCallum, R. C. (1988). Some factors affecting the success of specification searches in covariance structure modeling. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 23(3), 297–326. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327906mbr2303_2
Sojo, V. E., Wood, R. E., & Genat, A. E. (2016). Harmful workplace experiences and women’s occupational well-being: A meta-analysis. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 40(1), 10–40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315599346
Soper, D. S. (2022). A-priori sample size calculator for structural equation models [Software]. Available from https://www.danielsoper.com/statcalc
Stephan, W. G., & Renfro, C. L. (2002). The role of threat in intergroup relations. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions (pp. 191–207). Psychology Press.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (2000). An integrated theory of prejudice. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: The Claremont Symposium on applied social psychology (pp. 23–45). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc.
Stephan, C. W., Stephan, W. C., Demitrakis, K. M., Yamada, A. M., & Clason, D. L. (2000). Women's attitudes toward men an integrated threat theory approach. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 24(1), 63–73.https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2000.tb01022.x
Stephan, W. G., Ybarra, O., & Rios, K. (2016). Intergroup threat theory. In T. D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination (2nd ed., pp. 255–278). Routledge.
Stockdale, M. S. (2005). The sexual harassment of men: Articulating the approach-rejection theory of sexual harassment. In J. E. Gruber & P. Morgan (Eds.), In the company of men: Male dominance and sexual harassment (pp. 117–142). Northeastern University Press.
Stockdale, M. S., Gilmer, D. O., & Dinh, T. K. (2020). Dual effects of self-focused and other-focused power on sexual harassment intentions. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 39(1), 17–37. https://doi.org/10.1108/EDI-09-2018-0160
Tajfel, H. (1981). Social identity and intergroup relations. Cambridge University Press.
Uggen, C., & Blackstone, A. (2004). Sexual harassment as a gendered expression of power. American Sociological Review, 69(1), 64–92. https://doi.org/10.1177/000312240406900105
US Department of Defense. (2021). Hard truths and the duty to change: Recommendations from the independent review commission on sexual assault in the military. https://www.hsdl.org/?view&did=855937
Waldo, C. R., Berdahl, J. L., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1998). Are men sexually harassed? If so, by whom? Law and Human Behavior, 22(1), 59–79. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1025776705629
West, S. G., Taylor, A. B., & Wu, W. (2012). Model fit and model selection in structural equation modeling. In R. H. Hoyle (Ed.), Handbook of structural equation modeling (pp. 209–234). Guilford Press.
Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85(1), 75–85. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.75
Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L., Russell, B., Mannen, K., & Gasper, C. (1997). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior, 21(1), 71–93. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1024818110678
Wiener, R. L., Reiter-Palmon, R., Winter, R. J., Richter, E., Humke, A., & Maeder, E. (2010). Complainant behavioral tone, ambivalent sexism, and perceptions of sexual harassment. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 16(1), 56–84. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0018434
Williams, M. J., Gruenfeld, D. H., & Guillory, L. E. (2017). Sexual aggression when power is new: Effects of acute high power on chronically low-power individuals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 112(2), 201–223. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspi0000068
Willness, C. R., Steel, P., & Lee, K. (2007). A meta-analysis of the antecedents and consequences of workplace sexual harassment. Personnel Psychology, 60(1), 127–162. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-6570.2007.00067.x
Yuan, K. -H., & Bentler, P. M. (2000). Three likelihood-based methods for mean and covariance structure analysis with nonnormal missing data. Sociological Methodology, 30(1), 165–200. https://doi.org/10.1111/0081-1750.00078
Zacharek, S., Docterman, E., & Edwards, H. S. (2017). Time person of the year 2017: The silence breakers. Time Magazine. https://time.com/time-person-of-the-year-2017-silence-breakers/
Acknowledgements
Matthew Grabowski is now with HumRRO, Louisville, KY. We have no known conflicts of interest to disclose. Supplementary materials for this research are in an online supplement available at https://osf.io/e78v2/. We thank Jennifer Berdahl for her service as a subject matter expert for this research.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics Approval
We attest that we adhered to the ethical standards of the American Psychological Association and of the Institutional Review Board of Indiana University-Purdue University at Indianapolis in conducting and reporting this research.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Grabowski, M., Dinh, T.K., Wu, W. et al. The Sex-Based Harassment Inventory: A Gender Status Threat Measure of Sex-Based Harassment Intentions. Sex Roles 86, 648–666 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01294-1
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-022-01294-1