Sex Roles

, Volume 48, Issue 7–8, pp 337–348 | Cite as

The Effects of Delayed Report and Motive for Reporting on Perceptions of Sexual Harassment

  • Deborah Ware BaloghEmail author
  • Mary E. Kite
  • Kerri L. Pickel
  • Deniz Canel
  • James Schroeder


We examined whether the timing of the report and the victim's apparent motive for reporting influences women's and men's perceptions of sexual harassment. Undergraduates (153 women, 149 men) listened to 1 of 6 versions of audiotaped testimony of the victim and defendant. The report was filed either immediately or 18 months later, and motive either was presented as altruistic, retaliatory, or was not specified. Participants chose a verdict, rated the defendant's guilt, and rated the defendant and victim on several dimensions. Higher guilt ratings, more positive evaluations of the victim, and more negative evaluations of the defendant were associated with immediate reporting and an altruistic motive, although women weighed these factors more heavily than did men.

sexual harassment juror simulation juror victim victim blame victim blaming 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 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(1), 33-57.Google Scholar
  2. Borger, G., Walsh, K. T., Thornton, J., & Gest, T. (1991, October 21). Judging Thomas: A Supreme Court nominee—and the nominating system—on trial. U.S. News and World Report, pp. 32-36.Google Scholar
  3. Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23(1), 75-91.Google Scholar
  4. Brock, D. (1992, March). The real Anita Hill. American Spectator, pp. 18-30.Google Scholar
  5. Bursik, K. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment in an academic context. Sex Roles, 27, 401-412.Google Scholar
  6. Charney, D., & Russell, R. C. (1994). An overview of sexual harassment. American Journal of Psychiatry, 151, 10-17.Google Scholar
  7. Cortina, L. M., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 419-441.Google Scholar
  8. Dougherty, T. W., Turban, D. B., Olson, D. E., Dwyer, P. D., & Lapreze, M. W. (1996). Factors affecting perceptions of workplace sexual harassment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 17, 489-501.Google Scholar
  9. Estrich, S. (1991). Sex at work. Stanford Law Review, 43, 813-861.Google Scholar
  10. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Baily, 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
  11. Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn't she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women's responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 117-138.Google Scholar
  12. Gruber, J. E. (1990). Methodological problems and policy implications in sexual harassment research. Population Research and Policy Review, 9, 235-254.Google Scholar
  13. Gutek, B. A. (1995). How subjective is sexual harassment? An examination of rater effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 447-467.Google Scholar
  14. Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 28-48.Google Scholar
  15. Henry, J., & Meltzoff, J. (1998). Perceptions of sexual harassment as a function of target's response type and observer's sex. Sex Roles, 39, 253-271.Google Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Johnson, J. S. (1991, November 11). Letter to the editor. Newsweek, p. 12.Google Scholar
  18. Jones, T. S., & Remland, M. S. (1992). Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 121-142.Google Scholar
  19. Jones, T. S., Remland, M. S., & Bruner, 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.Google Scholar
  20. 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
  21. 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.Google Scholar
  22. Kirk, R. E. (1982). Experimental design (2nd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  23. Marin, A. J., & Guadagno, R. E. (1999). Perceptions of sexual harassment victims as a function of labeling and reporting. Sex Roles, 41, 921-940.Google Scholar
  24. Markunus, P. V., & Joyce-Brady, J. M. (1987). Underutilization of sexual harassment grievance procedures. Journal of the National Association of Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 50, 27-32.Google Scholar
  25. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).Google Scholar
  26. Morgan, P. A. (1999). Risking relationships: Understanding the litigation choices of sexually harassed women. Law and Society Review, 33(1), 67-92.Google Scholar
  27. Nygren, T. A. (1997). The effects of consistency, previous relationship, and the woman's reaction on judgments of sexual harassment: A factorial survey approach. (Doctoral dissertation, University of South Florida, 1997). Dissertation Abstracts International, 58, 4503.Google Scholar
  28. Pryor, J. B., & McKinney, K. (1995). Research on sexual harassment: Lingering issues and future directions. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 605-611.Google Scholar
  29. 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, 99-109.Google Scholar
  30. Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., Caldwell, D., & DeLuca, L. (1992). Tolerance for sexual harassment related to self-reported sexual victimization for sexual harassment related to self-reported sexual victimization. Gender and Society, 6, 122-138.Google Scholar
  31. Rice, J. A. (2001). Defending sexual harassment in the 90s. Retrieved June 28, 2001, from Scholar
  32. Riger, S. (2000). Transforming psychology: Gender in theory and practice. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  33. 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
  34. Salisbury, J., Ginorio, A. B., Remick, H., & Stringer, D. M. (1986). Counseling victims of sexual harassment. Psychotherapy: Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 23, 316-324.Google Scholar
  35. Sheets, V. L., & Braver, S. L. (1999). Organizational status and perceived sexual harassment: Detecting the mediators of a null effect. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1159-1171.Google Scholar
  36. Shepela, S. T., & Levesque, L. L. (1998). Poisoned waters: Sexual harassment and the college climate. Sex Roles, 38, 589-611.Google Scholar
  37. Shrier, D. K. (1996). Introduction and brief overview. In D. K. Shrier (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace and academia:Psychiatric issues (pp. 1-19). Washington, DC: American Psychiatric Press.Google Scholar
  38. Stockdale, M. S. (1998). The direct and moderating influences of sexual-harassment pervasiveness, coping strategies, and gender on work-related outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 521-535.Google Scholar
  39. Summers, R. J., & Myklebust, K. (1992). The influence of a history of romance on judgments and responses to a complaint of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 345-357.Google Scholar
  40. Thomman, D. A., & Wiener, R. L. (1987). Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles, 17, 573-591.Google Scholar
  41. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment of federal workers: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  42. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). Sexual harassment of federal workers: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  43. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1994). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Trends, progress, and continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.Google Scholar
  44. 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.Google Scholar
  45. Williams, C. W., Brown, R. S., Lees-Haley, P. R., & Price, J. R. (1995). An attributional (causal dimensional) analysis of perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1169-1183.Google Scholar
  46. Williams, K. B., & Cyr, R. R. (1992). Escalating commitment to a relationship: The sexual harassment trap. Sex Roles, 27, 47-72.Google Scholar
  47. Winer, D. L., Bonner, T. O., Blaney, P. H., & Murray, E. J. (1981). Depression and social attraction. Motivation and Emotion, 5, 153-166.Google Scholar
  48. Wyatt, G. E., & Riederle, M. (1994). Sexual harassment and prior sexual trauma among African-American and White American women. Violence and Victims, 9, 233-247.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Deborah Ware Balogh
    • 1
    Email author
  • Mary E. Kite
    • 1
  • Kerri L. Pickel
    • 1
  • Deniz Canel
    • 1
  • James Schroeder
    • 1
  1. 1.Ball State UniversityMuncie

Personalised recommendations