Sex Roles

, Volume 49, Issue 1–2, pp 59–69 | Cite as

Personality and the Likelihood to Sexually Harass

Article

Abstract

To identify personality traits associated with sexual harassment proclivities, scales that measure the Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH) and personality traits were administered to 150 respondents. Peer reports of personality were also obtained from respondents' acquaintances. The Big Five factors and a newly suggested major dimension of personality, named Honesty–Humility, were measured to represent respondents' personalities. Two major findings were obtained. First, as predicted, Honesty–Humility was more strongly associated with sexual harassment proclivities than were any of the Big Five, within both self- and peer reports. Second, among the Big Five, only peer-reported Intellect/Imagination (i.e., Openness to Experience) contributed to the prediction of LSH independently of Honesty–Humility. The importance of using an optimal framework of personality structure was discussed.

personality Big Five sexual harassment LSH scale Honesty–Humility 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2001). A theoretical basis for the major dimensions of personality. European Journal of Personality, 15, 327-353.Google Scholar
  2. Ashton, M. C., & Lee, K. (2002). Six independent factors of personality description: A response to Saucier. European Journal of Personality, 16, 63-75.Google Scholar
  3. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., Perugini, M., Szarota, P., De Vries, R., Di Blas, L., Boies, K., & De Raad, B. (in press). A six-factor structure of personality-descriptive adjectives: Solutions from psycholexical studies in seven languages. Journal of Personality of Social Psychology.Google Scholar
  4. Ashton, M. C., Lee, K., & Son, C. (2000). Honesty as the sixth factor of personality: Correlations with machiavellianism, psychopathy, and social adroitness. European Journal of Personality, 14, 359-368.Google Scholar
  5. Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. Journal of Psychology, 124, 409-416.Google Scholar
  6. Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). The attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power→sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768-781.Google Scholar
  7. Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C. A., Kelloway, E. K., Fullager, C., & Johnson, D. (1996). Prediction and replication of the organizational and personal consequences of work-place sexual harassment. Journal of Managerial Psychology, 11, 4-25.Google Scholar
  8. Bennett, R. J., & Robinson, S. L. (2000). Development of a measure of workplace deviance. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 349-360.Google Scholar
  9. Berkowitz, N. H., & Wolkon, G. H. (1964). A forced choice form of F scale-Free of acquiescent response set. Sociometry, 27, 54-65.Google Scholar
  10. Burt, M. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.Google Scholar
  11. Christie, R., & Geis, F. L. (1970). Studies in machiavellianism. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  12. Costa, P. T., Jr., & McCrae, R. R. (1992). NEO Personality Inventory Revised (NEO-PI-R) professional manual. Odessa, FL: Psychological Assessment Resources.Google Scholar
  13. Dall'Ara, E., & Maass, A. (1999). Studying sexual harassment in the laboratory: Are egalitarian women at high risk? Sex Roles, 41, 681-704.Google Scholar
  14. Driscoll, D. M., Kelly, J. R., & Henderson, W. M. (1998). Can perceivers identify likelihood to sexually harass? Sex Roles, 38, 557-588.Google Scholar
  15. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1999). Enforcement guidance: Vicarious employer liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. Code of Federal Regulations. 615 (Sec. 915.002).Google Scholar
  16. Equal Opportunity Commission of Australia. (2000). Commissioners annual report, 1999-2000. Canberra: Author.Google Scholar
  17. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578-589.Google Scholar
  18. Goldberg, L. R. (1999). A broad-bandwidth, public-domain, personality inventory measuring the lower-level facets of several five-factor models. In I. Mervielde, I. Deary, F. De Fruyt, & F. Ostendorf (Eds.), Personality psychology in Europe (Vol. 7, pp. 7-28). Tilburg, The Netherlands: Tilburg University Press.Google Scholar
  19. Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  20. Heaven, P. C. L., & Bucci, S. (2001). Right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and personality: An analysis using the IPIP measure. European Journal of Personality, 15, 49-56.Google Scholar
  21. Jackson, D. N. (1994). Jackson Personality Inventory Revised manual. Port Huron, MI: Sigma Assessment Systems.Google Scholar
  22. John, O. P., Donahue, E. M., & Kentle, R. L. (1991). The "Big Five" Inventory-Version 4a and 54. Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Institute of Personality and Social Research.Google Scholar
  23. Larrimer-Scherbaum, K., & Popovich, P. (2001, April). The relationship between personality and the proclivity to sexually harass. Paper presented at the annual meeting of Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, San Diego, CA.Google Scholar
  24. Lee, K., & Ashton, M. C. (2002). The HEXACO Personality Inventory: A new measure of the major dimensions of personality. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  25. Lee, K., Ashton, M. C., & Shin, K.-H. (in press). Personality correlates of workplace anti-social behavior. Applied Psychology: An International Review.Google Scholar
  26. Levenson, M. R., Kiehl, K. A., & Fitzpatrick, K. M. (1995). Assessing psychopathic attributes in a noninstitutionalized population. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 68, 151-158.Google Scholar
  27. Malamuth, N. (1986). Predictors of naturalistic aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 953-962.Google Scholar
  28. Meston, C. M., Heiman, J. R., Trapnell, P. D., & Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Socially desirable responding and sexuality self-reports. Journal of Sex Research, 35, 148-157.Google Scholar
  29. Murphy, J. D., Driscoll, D. M., & Kelly, J. R. (1999). Differences in the nonverbal behavior of men who vary in the likelihood to sexually harass. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 14, 113-128.Google Scholar
  30. Paulhus, D. L. (1991). Measurement and control of response bias. In J. P. Robinson, P. R. Shaver, & L. S. Wrightsman (Eds.), Measures of personality and social psychological attitudes (pp. 17-59). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  31. Peabody, D. (1987). Selecting representative trait adjectives. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 59-71.Google Scholar
  32. Peabody, D., & Goldberg, L. R. (1989). Some determinants of factor structures from personality-trait descriptors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 552-567.Google Scholar
  33. Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Schmidtke, J. M. (1998). Individual differences in the effectiveness of sexual harassment awareness training. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28, 698-723.Google Scholar
  34. Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269-290.Google Scholar
  35. Pryor, J. B. (1995). The psychosocial impact of sexual harassment on women in the U.S. military. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 581-603.Google Scholar
  36. 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.Google Scholar
  37. Pryor, J. B., LaVite, C., & Stoller, L. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42. 68-83.Google Scholar
  38. Pryor, J. B., & Meyers, A. B. (2000). Men who sexually harass women. In L. B. Schlesinger (Ed.), Serial offenders: Current thought, recent findings, unusual syndromes (pp. 207-228). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
  39. Pryor, J. B., & Stoller, L. (1994). Sexual cognition processes in men who are high in the likelihood to sexually harass. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 163-169.Google Scholar
  40. Terpstra, D. E., & Cook, S. E. (1985). Complaint characteristics and reported behaviors and consequences associated with formal sexual harassment charges. Personnel Psychology, 38, 559-574.Google Scholar
  41. Timmerman, G., & Bajema, C. (2000). The impact of organizational culture on perceptions and experiences of sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 57, 188-205.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kibeom Lee
    • 1
  • Marie Gizzarone
    • 2
  • Michael C. Ashton
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyThe University of CalgaryAlbertaCanada
  2. 2.Department of PsychologyThe University of Western AustraliaAustralia
  3. 3.Department of PsychologyBrock UniversityCanada

Personalised recommendations