Sex Roles

, Volume 41, Issue 9–10, pp 681–704 | Cite as

Studying Sexual Harassment in the Laboratory: Are Egalitarian Women at Higher Risk?

  • Elena Dall'Ara
  • Anne Maass
Article

Abstract

A laboratory experiment is reported in whichmale participants in Northern Italy (N = 120 universitystudents) were given the opportunity to sendpornographic material to a female interaction partner(“computer harassmentparadigm”). The allegedgender-role orientation of the female (traditional vs.egalitarian) and the construal of the interaction aseither intergroup or interpersonal were variedsystematically. Results show that participants molest femaleinteraction partners more when they express egalitarianrather than traditional gender-role attitudes; this isparticularly true for males with a high propensity to harass (high scores on likelihood of sexualharassment scale, Pryor, 1987), with sexist attitudes,with a strong identification as “males,” andfor low self-monitors. Also, males with a highpropensity to harass were more likely to harass theirinteraction partner when they perceived the situation asa male-female inter-group setting (rather than asinterpersonal). Results are interpreted as supporting a social identity account ofmisogyny.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Abrams, D., & Hogg, M. A. (1988). Comments on the motivational status of self-este em in social identity and intergroup discrimination. European Jo urnal of Social Psych ology, 18, 317–334.Google Scholar
  2. Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power fisex association and its consequence s for sexual harassment and aggression. Journ al of Perso nality and Social Psych ology, 68, 768–781.Google Scholar
  3. Bem, S. (1984). Androgyny and gender schema theory: A conceptual and empirical integration. Neb raska Symposium on Motivation (pp. 179–226). Lincoln: Unive rsity of Nebaska Pre ss.Google Scholar
  4. Be rsche id, E., Graziano, W., Monson, T., & De rmen, M. (1976). Outcome dependency: Attention, attribution and attraction. Jou rnal of Perso nality an d Social Psych ology, 34, 978–989.Google Scholar
  5. Brannon, R., & Junni, S. (1984). A scale for measuring attitudes about masculinity. Psycho logical Documen ts, 14, 6–7.Google Scholar
  6. Brewe r, M. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal group situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psycho logical Bulletin, 86, 307–324.Google Scholar
  7. Brooks, L., & Perot, A. R. (1991). Reporting sexual harassment: Exploring a predictive model. Psycholo gy of Women Quarterly, 15, 31–47.Google Scholar
  8. Brown, R. (1995). Prejudice. Its social psychology. Oxford: Blackwe ll.Google Scholar
  9. Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Jou rnal of Personality an d Social Psycho logy, 38, 217–230.Google Scholar
  10. Diehl, M. (1990). The minimal group paradigm: theoretical explanations and empirical finding. In W. Stroebe and M. Hewstone (Eds.), Europ ean Review of Social Psycho logy. Chichester: Wiley.Google Scholar
  11. Fitzgerald, L., & He sson-McInnis,M. (1989). The dimensions of sexual harassment: A structural analysis. Journ al of Vocation al Behavior, 35, 309–326.Google Scholar
  12. Fitzgerald, L., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Sweker, J., Gold, Y., Ormeron, A. J., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Jou rnal of Vocation al Behavior, 32, 152–175.Google Scholar
  13. Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Fische r, K. (1995). Why didn’ t she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’ s response s to sexual harassment. Special issues: Gende r stereotyping, sexual harassme nt and the law. Jo urn al of Social Issues, 51, 117–138.Google Scholar
  14. Gae rtner, S. L., Mann, J., Murre l, A., & Dovidio, J. F. (1989). Reducing inter-group bias: The benefits of re cate gorization. Jo urn al of Perso nality an d Social Psych ology, 57, 239–249.Google Scholar
  15. Gelfand, M. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The structure of sexual harassment: A confirmatory analysis across cultures and settings. Jou rnal of Vocational Beh avior, 47, 164–177Google Scholar
  16. Glick, (1999). Conference of the European Association of Expe rimental Social Psychology, Oxford, July 1999.Google Scholar
  17. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Jou rnal of Person ality an d Social Psycho logy, 70, 491–512.Google Scholar
  18. Grube r, J. E. (1997). An epidemiology of sexual harassme nt: Evidence from North America and Europe. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexu al harassment: Theory, research, an d treatmen t (pp. 84–98). Needham He ights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  19. Grube r, J. E., Smith, M., & Kauppinen-Toropainen, K. (1996). Sexual harassme nt type s and seve rity: Linking re search and policy. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexu al harassmen t in the workplace: Persp ectives, frontiers, and respo nse strategies. Women and work: A Re search and Policy Series, Vol. 5. (pp. 151–173). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  20. Gutek, B. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Josse y-Bass.Google Scholar
  21. Haavio-Mannila, E., Kaupinen-Toropainen, K., & Kandolin, I. (1988). The e ffect of sex composition of the workplace on friendship, romance and sex at work. In B.A. Gutek, A. H. Stromberg, & L. Larwood (Eds.), Women and work (Vol. 3, pp. 123–138). Beve rly Hills, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  22. Hinkle, S., & Brown, R. (1990). Intergroup comparisons and social identity: Some links and lacunae. In D. Abrams & M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory (pp. 48–70). New York: Harveste r Wheatshe af.Google Scholar
  23. Ickes, W. J., & Barnes, R. D. (1977). The role of sex and self-monitoring in instructured dyadic interactions. Jo urn al of Perso nality and Social Psych ology, 35, 315–330.Google Scholar
  24. ISTATÐ Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (1998). Molestie e violenze sessuali [sexual harassment an d violen ce]. Report by L. L. Sabbadini, Rome, 22 September, 1998.Google Scholar
  25. Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1988). Out-group homogeneity: Judgme nts of variability and the individual and group levels. Jou rnal of Person ality an d Social Psycho logy, 54, 778–788.Google Scholar
  26. Larwood, L. Szwajkowski, E., & Rose, S. (1988). Sex and race discrimination resulting from manageme nt-client re lationships: Rational bias theory of management discrimination. Sex Roles, 18, 9–29.Google Scholar
  27. Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceive d distributions of the characte ristics of in-group and out-group membe rs. Jou rnal of Perso nality an d Social Psycho logy, 57, 165–188.Google Scholar
  28. Long, K. M., & Spears, R. (1994). The influence of personal and collective self-este em on strategie s of social identification. British Jo urnal of Social Psycho logy, 33, 313 – 329. Long, K. M., & Spears, R. (1997). The self-este em hypothesis revisited: Differentiation and the disaffected. In R. Spears, P. J. Oakes, N. Elleme rs, & S. A. Haslam, (Eds.). The so cial psycho logy of stereotyp ing an d grou p life. (pp. 296–317). Oxford: Blackwe ll PublishersGoogle Scholar
  29. Luthanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A Collective Self-Esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one’ s social identity. Perso nality and Social Psycholo gy Bulletin, 18, 302–318.Google Scholar
  30. Malamuth, N. M. (1989). The Attraction to Sexual Aggre ssion scale: Part one. Jou rn al of Sex Research, 26, 26–49.Google Scholar
  31. Nelson, P. A. (1979). A sexual functions inventory. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Unive rsity of Florida.Google Scholar
  32. Padavic, I., & Orcutt, J. D. (1997). Pe rceptions of sexual harassme nt ion the Florida legal system: A comparison of dominance and spillover explanations. G en der an d Society, 11, 682–697.Google Scholar
  33. Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassme nt proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pryor, J. B. (1992). The social psychology of sexual harassment: Pe rson and Situation factors give rise to sexual harassme nt. In Northwest women’ s Law Center. Sex and power issues in the workplace: An interdisciplinary app roach to un derstan ding, preventing, and reso lving harassment: Conference proceedings (pp. 89–105). Seattle, Washington: Northwest Law Center.Google Scholar
  35. Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. (1995). A social psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. Jo urnal of Social Issues, 51, 69–84.Google Scholar
  36. Pryor, J. B., La Vite, C., & Stoller, L. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassme nt: The person/situation interaction. Jou rn al of Vocatio nal Beh avior, 42, 68–83.Google Scholar
  37. Pryor, J. B., & Stoller, L. (1994). Sexual cognition proce sse s in men who are high in the likelihood to sexually harass. Person ality an d social Psycho logy Bulletin, 20, 163–169.Google Scholar
  38. Pryor, J. B., & Whalen, N. J. (1997). A typology of sexual harassme nt: Characte ristics of harassers and the social circumstance s under which sexual harassme nt occurs. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexu al Harassment: Theo ry, Research, an d Treatmen t (pp. 129–151). Needham He ights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  39. Rosenberg, J., Pe rlstadt, H., & Phillips, W. R. (1993). Now that we are here: Discrimination, disparagement and harassment at work and the experience of women lawye rs. G en der and Society, 7, 415–433.Google Scholar
  40. Rubinstein, M. (1987). The dignity of women at work.Report on the prob lem of sexual harassment in the member states of the eu ropean commun ities.Google Scholar
  41. Salvadori, (1997). Molestie sessuali nei luogh i di lavoro: Fattori normativi e disposiz ionali [Sexu al harassmen t at work: normative an d dispositional factors]. Unpublished Maste r’ s Thesis, Unive rsitaÁ di Padova.Google Scholar
  42. Savani, N. (1998). La propension e alla molestia sessu ale: Un’ indagin e su studenti universitari [The prop ensity to engage in sexu al harassmen t: A study on un iversity studen ts]. Unpublished Master’ s The sis, Unive rsitaÁ di Padova.Google Scholar
  43. Schwartz Tangri, S., & Hayes, S. M. (1997). Theories of sexual harassme nt. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassmen t: Theo ry, research, an d treatment (pp. 113–128). Needham He ights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  44. Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (1998). A social prob lem: Sexual harrassment over the ph one. 24th International Congress of Applied Psychology, San Francisco.Google Scholar
  45. Smith, E., Fe re e, M., & Miller, F. (1975). A short scale of attitudes toward feminism. Represen tative Research in Social Psych ology, 6, 51–56.Google Scholar
  46. Snyder, M. (1974). Self-monitoring of expressive behavior. Jo urn al of Person ality and Social Psycholo gy, 30, 526–537.Google Scholar
  47. Snyder, M., & Cantor, N. (1980). Thinking about ourselves and others: Self-monitoring and social knowledge. Journ al of Perso nality and Social Psych ology, 39, 222–234.Google Scholar
  48. Snyder, J., & Gangste ad, S. (1986). On the nature of self-monitoring: Matte rs of asse ssment, matters of validity. Jo urn al of Perso nality and Social Psych ology, 51, 125 – 139.Google Scholar
  49. Snyder, M., & Monson, T. C. (1975). Pe rsons, situations, and the control of social behavior. Jou rnal of Person ality an d Social Psycho logy, 32, 637–644.Google Scholar
  50. Snyder, M., Simpson, J., & Gangste ad, S. (1986). Personality and sexual re lations. Jou rnal of Person ality an d Social Psycho logy, 51, 181–190.Google Scholar
  51. Spears, R., Oake s, P., Ellemers, N., & Haslam, S. A. (Eds.). The social psycho logy of stereotypin g and gro up life. Oxford: Blackwe ll Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Spence, J. T., He lmreich, R., & Strapp, J. (1973). A short ve rsion of the Attitude Toward Women Scale. Bullettin of Psych onomic Society, 2, 219–220.Google Scholar
  53. Tajfe l, H. (1982). Social psychology of inter-group re lations. Ann ual Rewiew of Psycho logy, 33, 1–39.Google Scholar
  54. Tajfe l, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of inter-group conflict. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psych ology of inter-gro up relation s, (pp. 33–48). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.Google Scholar
  55. Tajfe l, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-group behavior. In W. Austin & S. Worche l (Eds.), The social psycho logy of inter-gro up relation s (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.Google Scholar
  56. Turner, J. C., (1982). Towards a cognitive redefinition of the social group. In H. Tajfel (Ed.), Social iden tity an d inter-gro up relations, (pp. 15–41). Cambridge: Cambridge Unive rsity Press.Google Scholar
  57. Turner, J. C. Hogg, M., Oakes, P. J. Re icher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987). Rediscovering the social grou p: A self-categoriz ation theo ry. Oxford: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  58. Zickar, M. J. (1994). Anteceden ts of sexual harassment. Pape r presented at the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology Mee ting, Nashville, Tennessee.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Elena Dall'Ara
  • Anne Maass

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations