Sex Roles

, Volume 50, Issue 7–8, pp 565–573

Tolerance of Sexual Harassment: An Examination of Gender Differences, Ambivalent Sexism, Social Dominance, and Gender Roles

  • Brenda L. Russell
  • Kristin Y. Trigg
Article

Abstract

In this study we examined the effects of gender, gender roles (masculinity and femininity), ambivalent sexism, and social dominance orientation with regard to tolerance of sexual harassment. It was predicted that women would be less tolerant than men of sexual harassment, however, men and women who were tolerant of sexual harassment would share ambivalence and hostility toward women, and they would exhibit higher levels of social dominance and masculinity. Results partially supported the hypotheses. Women were significantly less tolerant of harassment than men were, however, regression analyses showed that ambivalent sexism and hostility toward women accounted for the majority of total variance (35%), followed by gender (5%), social dominance (1%), femininity (0.7%), and nonsexism (0.6%). Masculinity and benevolent sexism were not significant predictors. Results suggest that ambivalence and hostility toward women are much greater predictors of tolerance of sexual harassment than is gender alone.

sexual harassment ambivalent sexism gender differences 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

references

  1. Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Larntz, K. (1990). The influence of individual characteristics and severity of harassing behavior on reactions to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 22, 305-321.Google Scholar
  2. Bingham, S., & Scherer, L. L. (2001). The unexpected effects of a sexual harassment educational program. Journal of Applied Behavioral Science, 37, 125-153.Google Scholar
  3. Bookwala, J., Frieze, I. H., Smith, C., & Ryan, K. (1992). Predictors of dating violence: A multivariate analysis. Violence and Victims, 7, 297-311.Google Scholar
  4. Brehm, S. S. (1992). Intimate relationships. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Bursik, K. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment in an academic context. Sex Roles, 27, 401-412.Google Scholar
  6. Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and support for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 217-230.Google Scholar
  7. Cleveland, J. N., & Kerst, M. E. (1993). Sexual harassment and perceptions of power: An under-articulated relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 46-67.Google Scholar
  8. Cowan, G. (2000). Women's hostility toward women and rape and sexual harassment myths. Violence Against Women, 6, 238-246.Google Scholar
  9. Eagly, A. H., & Mladinic, A. (1993). Are people prejudiced against women? Some answers from research on attitudes, gender stereotypes, and judgments of competenc. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 203-216.Google Scholar
  10. Fiske, S. T., & Stevens, L. E. (1993). What's so special about sex? Gender stereotyping and discrimination. In S. Oskamp & M. Costanzo (Eds.), Gender issues in contemporary society: Applied social psychology annual (pp. 173-196). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  11. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.Google Scholar
  12. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism: Measuring ambivalent sexist attitudes toward women. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 119-135.Google Scholar
  13. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1999). The ambivalence toward men inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent beliefs about men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 519-536.Google Scholar
  14. Glick, P., & Hilt, L. (2000). In T. Eckes, & H. Trautner (Eds.). The developmental social psychology of gender, (pp. 243-272). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.Google Scholar
  15. Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  16. Gutek, B. A., & O'Conner, M. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 151-166.Google Scholar
  17. Hurt, L., Wiener, R. L., Russell, B. L., & Mannen, R. K. (1999). Gender differences in evaluating social-sexual conduct in the workplace. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 413-433.Google Scholar
  18. Jacobs, J. R. (1996). Psychological and demographic correlates of men's perceptions of and attitudes toward sexual harassment. Dissertation Abstracts International, 57, 3826A.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, T., & Remland, M. (1992). Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 121-141.Google Scholar
  20. Lonsway, K. A., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1995). Attitudinal antecedents of rape myth acceptance: A theoretical and empirical reexamination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 704-711.Google Scholar
  21. Maccoby, E. E. (1988). Gender as a social category. Developmental Psychology, 24, 755-765.Google Scholar
  22. Malamuth, N. M., Linz, D., Heavey, C. L., Barnes, G., & Acker, M. (1995). Using the confluence model of sexual aggression to predict men's conflict with women: A 10-year follow up study. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 353-367.Google Scholar
  23. Mazer, D. B., & Percival, E. (1989). Ideology or experience? Sex Roles, 20, 135-145.Google Scholar
  24. Poppen, P., & Segal, N. J. (1988). The influence of sex and sex role orientation on sexual coercion. Sex Roles, 19, 689-701.Google Scholar
  25. Powell, G. N. (1986). Effects of sex-role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 14, 9-19.Google Scholar
  26. Pratto, F., Sidanius, J., Stallworth, L. M., & Malle, B. F. (1994). Social dominance orientation: A personality variable predicting social and political attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 741-763.Google Scholar
  27. Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269-290.Google Scholar
  28. 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
  29. 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
  30. 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
  31. Pryor, J. B., & Whalen, N. J. (1997). A typology of sexual harassment. Characteristics of harassers and the social circumstances under which sexual harassment occurs. In W. O'Donohue (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 129-151). Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Google Scholar
  32. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D.-H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914-922.Google Scholar
  33. Rubin, L. J., & Borgers, S. B. (1990). Sexual harassment in universities during the 1980's. Sex Roles, 23(7–8), 397-411.Google Scholar
  34. Sinn, J. S. (1997). The predictive and discriminate validity of masculinity ideology. Journal of Research in Personality, 31, 117-135.Google Scholar
  35. Sheffy, S., & Tindale, R. S. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1502-1520.Google Scholar
  36. Spence, J. T., & Hahn E. D. (1997). The attitudes toward women scale and attitude change in college students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 17-34.Google Scholar
  37. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. L. (1978). Masculinity and femininity: Their psychological dimensions, correlates and antecedents. Austin: University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stockdale, M. S., Dewey, J. D., & Saal, F. E. (1992). Evidence that misperception tendencies relate to a sexual belief system. Unpublished manuscript, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, ILGoogle Scholar
  39. Swim, J. K., & Cohen, L. L. (1997). Overt, covert and subtle sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 103-119.Google Scholar
  40. Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7-24). Chicago: Nelson Hall.Google Scholar
  41. Unger, R., & Crawford, M. (1992). Women and gender: A feminist psychology. New York: McGraw Hill.Google Scholar
  42. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75-85.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Brenda L. Russell
    • 1
  • Kristin Y. Trigg
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of PsychologyCastleton State CollegeCastleton

Personalised recommendations