Abstract
Although research has investigated definitionsand prevalence of sexual harassment, little is knownabout responses to sexual harassment. Therefore, thepresent study was designed to explore how individuals interpret the communication of various targetresponses. One hundred and twenty employees fromhealthcare settings were randomly assigned to one offour conditions. The majority of the individuals in the sample was White-European American (75%) whilethe remaining 25% was comprised of minority members. Theconditions contained a video-taped interaction betweentwo co-workers, one male and one female. The male's behavior in each interaction continuedto escalate to the point of sexual harassment while thefemale's responses varied. There were two passiveresponses and two assertive responses. After viewing the short video participants responded toquestions assessing their perceptions of theinteraction. Results indicated there were no differencesin perceptions between men and women when viewing thevarious conditions. There were, however, differencesfound between the assertive conditions and the passiveconditions. Specifically, assertive responses areperceived as more effective than passive responses in communicating unwelcomeness and in deterringthe initiator's persistence. However, consistent withthe research on responses to sexual harassment,perceptions of sexual harassment appear to be based more on the initiator's behavior than on thetarget's responses.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
Aaron, T. E. (1993). Sexual harassment in the workplace: A guide to the law and a research overview for employees and employers. Jefferson, NC: McFarland.
Adams, J. W., Kottke, J. L., & Padgitt, J. S. (1983). Sexual harassment of university students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 484–490.
Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. The Journal of Psychology, 124, 409–416.
Bingham, S. G., & Burleson, B. (1989). Multiple effects of messages with multiple goals: Some perceived outcomes of responses to sexual harassment. Human Communication Research, 16, 84–216.
Bingham, S. G., & Scherer, L. L. (1993). Factors associated with responses to sexual harassment and satisfaction with outcome. Sex Roles, 29, 239–269.
Clair, R. P., McGoun, M. J., & Spirek, M. M. (1993). Sexual harassment responses of working women: An assessment of current communication oriented typologies and perceived effectiveness of the response. In G. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.
Collins, E. G., & Blodgett, T. B. (1981). Sexual harassment... some see it... some won't. Harvard Business Review, 59, 76–95.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281–294.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 5–27.
Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 28–48.
Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55–74.
Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1983). Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30–48.
Hunter, C., & McClelland, K. (1991). Honoring accounts for sexual harassment: A factorial survey analysis. Sex Roles, 24, 725–752.
Jones, T. S., & Remland, M. S. (1992). Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 121–142.
Jones, T. S., Remland, M. S., & Brunner, C. C. (1987). Effects of employment relationship, response of recipient, and sex of rater on perceptions of sexual harassment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65, 55–63.
Kenig, S., & Ryan, J. (1986). Sex differences in levels of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campus. Sex Roles, 15, 535–549.
Lester, D., Banta, B., Barton, J., Elian, N., Mackiewicz, L., & Winkelried, J. (1986). Judgments about sexual harassment: Effects of the power of the harasser. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 63, 990.
Littler-Bishop, S., Seidler-Feller, D., & Opaluch, R. E. (1982). Sexual harassment in the workplace as a function of initiator's status: The case of airline personnel. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 137–148.
Livingston, J. A. (1982). Responses to sexual harassment on the job: Legal, organizational, and individual actions. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 5–22.
Popovich, P. M., Licata, B. J., Nokovich, D., Martelli, T., & Zoloty, S. (1986). Assessing the incidence and perceptions of sexual harassment behaviors among American undergraduates. Journal of Psychology, 120, 387–396.
Powell, G. N. (1986). Effects of sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 14, 9–19.
Pryor, J. B. (1985). The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 13, 273–278.
Pryor, J. B., & Day, J. D. (1988). Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional analysis. Sex Roles, 18, 405–417.
Reilly, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K. (1982). The factorial survey: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 99–110.
Rigor, S. (1991). Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies and procedures. American Psychologist, 16, 497–505.
Tangri, S. S., Burt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 33–54.
Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1986). Psychological and demographic correlates of perceptions of sexual harassment. Genetic, Social, and General Psychology Monographs, 112, 461–478.
Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1987). A hierarchy of sexual harassment. The Journal of Psychology, 121, 599–605.
Thomann, D. A., & Weiner, R. L. (1987). Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles, 17, 573–591.
U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1980, November 10). Final amendment to guidelines on discrimination because of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 29 CFR Part 1064. Federal Register, 45, 74675–74677.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1987). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: An update. Washington DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Valentine-French, S., & Radtke, H. L. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles, 21, 545–555.
Weber-Burdin, E., & Rossi, P. H. (1982). Defining sexual harassment on campus: A replication and extension. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 111–120.
York, K. M. (1989). Defining sexual harassment in workplaces: A policy-capturing approach. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 830–850.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Henry, J., Meltzoff, J. Perceptions of Sexual Harassment as a Function of Target's Response Type and Observer's Sex. Sex Roles 39, 253–271 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018854505747
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1018854505747