Advertisement

Sex Roles

, Volume 50, Issue 9–10, pp 623–639 | Cite as

Women's and Men's Reactions to Man-to-Man Sexual Harassment: Does the Sexual Orientation of the Victim Matter?

  • Eros DeSouza
  • Solberg
Article

Abstract

We manipulated the sexual orientation of the victim in a hypothetical case to address 3 key questions: Is it harassment, does the case need to be investigated further, and is the harasser's behavior punishable? Our sample comprised 433 undergraduates (91.5% of whom were White). We hypothesized that women would rate the case as more sexually harassing, as needing further investigation, and as more punishable than men would. We also hypothesized that the sexual orientation of the victim would affect perceptions of the case; specifically, students would significantly rate the incident as more harassing, as needing further investigation, and would recommend more punishment when the victim was homosexual rather than heterosexual. We hypothesized that female respondents would perceive more categories of inappropriate behaviors perpetrated by men on other men as constituting sexual harassment than would male respondents. Furthermore, we hypothesized that lewd comments and enforcement of the traditional masculine gender role would predict responses to the 3 key questions asked about the case. With the exception of recommending greater punishment when the victim was homosexual rather than heterosexual, all hypotheses were supported.

gender differences sexual harassment of men sexual orientation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

references

  1. Bastian, L. D., Lancaster, A. R., & Reyst, H. E. (1996). Department of Defense 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.Google Scholar
  2. Begany, J. J., & Milburn, M. A. (2002). Psychological predictors of sexual harassment: Authoritarianism, hostile sexism, and rape myths. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 3, 119-126.Google Scholar
  3. Bennett-Alexander, D. D., & Hartman, L. P. (2001). Employment law for business (3rd ed.). Boston: Irwin/McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  4. 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.Google Scholar
  5. 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, 33-59.Google Scholar
  6. Buchanan, N. T. (2002, August). Integrating qualitative methods in examining racialized sexual harassment among African American women. In C. A. Bulger (Chair), Refining, expanding, and integrating knowledge of sexual harassment. Symposium presented at the meeting of the International Coalition Against Sexual Harassment, Chicago, IL.Google Scholar
  7. Bundy v. Jackson, 641 F.2d 934 (D.C. Cir. 1981).Google Scholar
  8. Burlington Industries v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742 (1998).Google Scholar
  9. Button, S. B. (2001). Organizational efforts to affirm sexual diversity: A cross-level examination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 17-28.Google Scholar
  10. Charney, D. A., & Russell, R. C. (1994). An overview of sexual harassment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 10-17.Google Scholar
  11. Cochran, C. C., Frazier, P. A., & Olson, A. M. (1997). Predictors of responses to unwanted sexual attention. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 207-226.Google Scholar
  12. Code of Federal Regulations, Vol. 29, §1604.11 (2000).Google Scholar
  13. Connell, R. W. (1995). Masculinities. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  14. DeSouza, E., & Fansler, A. G. (2003). Contrapower sexual harassment: A survey of students and faculty members. Sex Roles, 48, 529-542.Google Scholar
  15. Doe & Doe v. City of Belleville, Illinois, 119 F.3d 563. (7th Cir. 1997).Google Scholar
  16. DuBois, C. L. Z., Knapp, D. E., Faley, R. H., & Kustis, G. A. (1998). An empirical examination of same-and other-gender sexual harassment in the workplace. Sex Roles, 9, 731-749.Google Scholar
  17. EEOC Compliance Manual (CCH) §615.2 (b) (3) (1987).Google Scholar
  18. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2003, February 6). Sexual Harassment Charges EEOC & FEPAs Combined: FY 1992–FY 2002. Washington, DC. Retrieved February 7, 2003, from http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/harass.htmlGoogle Scholar
  19. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998).Google Scholar
  20. Fineran, S., & Bennett, L. (1999). Gender and power issues of peer sexual harassment among teenagers. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 14, 626-641.Google Scholar
  21. Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause sexual harassment: A theory with implications for organizational change. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 97-115.Google Scholar
  22. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., et al. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.Google Scholar
  23. Foote, W. E., & Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1999). Same-sex harassment: Implications of the Oncale decision for forensic evaluation of plaintiffs. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 123-139.Google Scholar
  24. Foulis, D., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). Sexual harassment: Factors affecting attitudes and perceptions. Sex Roles, 37, 773-798.Google Scholar
  25. Franke, K. M. (1997). What's wrong with sexual harassment? Stanford Law Review, 49, 691-772.Google Scholar
  26. Garcia v. Elf Atochem North America, 28 F.3d 446 (5th Cir. 1994).Google Scholar
  27. 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
  28. 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
  29. Grauerholz, E. (1989). Sexual harassment of women professors by students: Exploring the dynamics of power, authority, and gender in a university setting. Sex Roles, 21, 789-801.Google Scholar
  30. Guiffre, P., & Williams, C. (1994). Boundary lines: Labeling sexual harassment in restaurants. Gender and Society, 8, 378-401.Google Scholar
  31. Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.Google Scholar
  32. Gutek, B. A. (1995). How subjective is sexual harassment? An examination of rater effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 447-468.Google Scholar
  33. Gutek, B. A., & Done, R. S. (2001). Sexual harassment. In R. K. Unger (Ed.), Handbook of the psychology of women and gender (pp. 367-387). New York: Wiley.Google Scholar
  34. Harris v. Forklift Systems, 510 U.S. 17 (1993).Google Scholar
  35. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 897 (D.C. Cir. 1982).Google Scholar
  36. Hurt, J. L., Maver, J. A., & Hoffman, D. (1999). Situational and individual influences on judgments of hostile environment sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29, 1395-1415.Google Scholar
  37. Illinois Compiled Statutes, Ch. 730, Section 5/5-8-1 (2001a).Google Scholar
  38. Illinois Compiled Statutes, Ch. 720, Section 5/12-7.1 (2001b).Google Scholar
  39. Katz v. Dole, 709 F.2d 251 (4th Cir. 1983).Google Scholar
  40. Katz, R. C., Hannon, R., & Whitten, L. (1996). Effects of gender and situation on the perception of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 34, 35-42.Google Scholar
  41. Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, B. D., & Herbert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.Google Scholar
  42. LaRocca, M. A., & Kromrey, J. D. (1999). Perception of sexual harassment in higher education: Impact of gender and attractiveness. Sex Roles, 40, 921-940.Google Scholar
  43. Lawrence v. Texas, 71 U.S.L.W. 4574 (2003).Google Scholar
  44. Marks, M. A., & Nelson, E. S. (1993). Sexual harassment on campus: Effects of professor gender on perception of sexually harassing behaviors. Sex Roles, 28, 207-217.Google Scholar
  45. Martindale, M. (1991). Sexual harassment in the military: 1988. Sociological Practice Review, 2, 200-216.Google Scholar
  46. Masser, B., & Abrams, D. (1999). Contemporary sexism: The relationships among hostility, benevolence, and neosexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 23, 503-517.Google Scholar
  47. Matchen, J., & DeSouza, E. (2000). The sexual harassment of faculty members by students. Sex Roles, 42, 295-306.Google Scholar
  48. McKinney, K. (1992). Contrapower sexual harassment: The effects of student sex and type of behavior on faculty perception. Sex Roles, 27, 1-17.Google Scholar
  49. McKinney v. Dole, 765 F.2d 1129 (D.C. Cir. 1985).Google Scholar
  50. McWilliams v. Fairfax County Board of Supervisors, 72 F.3d 1191 (4th Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
  51. Meritor v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).Google Scholar
  52. Murolo, N. M., & Schmelkin, L. P. (1997, October). Sexual harassment and manly sports: Are they related? Paper presented at the meeting of the Northeastern Educational Research Association, Ellenville, NY. (EDRS Document Reproduction Service No. ED413570)Google Scholar
  53. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2002). Hate crimes map. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from http://www.ngltf.org/library/index.cfm#1Google Scholar
  54. National Gay and Lesbian Task Force. (2003). Civil rights map. Retrieved July 29, 2003, from http://www.ngltf.org/library/index.cfm#1Google Scholar
  55. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 83 F.3d 118 (5th Cir. 1996).Google Scholar
  56. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998).Google Scholar
  57. Page, S. (2003, July 28). Gay rights tough to sharpen into political 'wedge issue': Shifting attitudes highlights risks for both parties. USA Today, p. 10A.Google Scholar
  58. Pharr, S. (1988). Homophobia: A weapon of sexism. Little Rock, AR: Chardon Press.Google Scholar
  59. 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. 130-151). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  60. Pyke, K. D. (1996). Class-based masculinities: The interdependence of gender, class, and interpersonal power. Gender and Society, 10, 527-549.Google Scholar
  61. Ragins, B. R., & Cornwell, J. M. (2001). Pink triangles: Antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 1244-1261.Google Scholar
  62. Rankin, S. R. (2003). Campus climate for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people: A national perspective. New York: National Gay and Lesbian Task Force Policy Institute.Google Scholar
  63. Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., Caldwell, D., & DeLuca, L. (1992). Tolerance of sexual harassment related to self-reported sexual victimization. Gender and Society, 6, 122-138.Google Scholar
  64. Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students. Sex Roles, 15, 333-358.Google Scholar
  65. Rospenda, K. M., Richman, J. A., & Nawyn, S. J. (1998). Doing power: The confluence of gender, race, and class in contrapower sexual harassment. Gender and Society, 12, 40-60.Google Scholar
  66. 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
  67. Sanday, P. R. (1990). Fraternity gang rape: Sex, brotherhood, and privilege on campus. New York: New York University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Sigal, J., Braden-Maguire, J., Patt, I., Goodrich, C., & Perrino, C. S. (2003). Effects of type of coping response, setting, and social context on reactions to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 48, 157-166.Google Scholar
  69. Stermac, L., Sheridan, P. M., Davidson, A., & Dunn, S. (1996). Sexual assault of adult males. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 11, 52-64.Google Scholar
  70. Stockdale, M. S., Visio, M., & Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men: Evidence for a broader theory of sexual harassment and sexual discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 630-664.Google Scholar
  71. Strauss, S. (2003). Sexual harassment in K–12. In M. Paludi & C. A. Paludi Jr. (Eds.), Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of cultural, social science, management, and legal perspectives (pp. 105-145). Westport, CT: Praeger.Google Scholar
  72. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000 et seq. (as amended by Pub. L. No. 102-166 (1991)).Google Scholar
  73. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  74. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). Sexual harassment in the Federal Government: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  75. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1995). Sexual harassment in the Federal Government: Trends, progress, continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  76. Waldo, C. R., Berdahl, J. L., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1998). Are men sexually harassed? If so by whom? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 59-79.Google Scholar
  77. Wayne, J. H., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, K. C. (2001). Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same-and cross-gender cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 179-187.Google Scholar
  78. Whitley, B. E., Jr. (2001). Gender-role variables and attitudes toward homosexuality. Sex Roles, 45, 691-721.Google Scholar
  79. 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
  80. 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, 71-93.Google Scholar
  81. Wiener, R. L., Watts, B. A., Goldkamp, K. H., & Gasper, C. (1995). Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments: A test of the reasonable woman standard. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 263-281.Google Scholar
  82. Wrightson v. Pizza Hut of America, Inc., 99 F.3d 138 (4th Cir. 1996).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Psychology (4620)Illinois State UniversityNormal
  2. 2.Department of FinanceInsurance & Law (Normal

Personalised recommendations