Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional analysis

  • Published:
Sex Roles Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Two studies were conducted to examine an attributional model of judgments of sexual harassment. The key assumption of the model is that judgments of sexual harassment involve the attribution of negative intentions (e.g., hostility or callousness) to an actor with regard to a sexual behavior. The two studies effectively demonstrated that many factors known to influence the attribution of intentionality play an important role in judgments of sexual harassment. The findings are discussed with regard to understanding how people differ in their judgments of sexual harassment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Benson, D. J., & Thomson, G. E. Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relation, sexual interest and gender stratification. Social Problems, 1982, 29, 236–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bower, G. H. Experiments on story comprehension and recall. Discourse Processes, 1978, 1, 211–231.

    Google Scholar 

  • Guteck, B. A. Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. Interpreting sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 1983, 22, 30–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A., Nakamura, C. Y., Gahart, M. Handschumacher, I., & Russell, D. Sexuality and the workplace. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 1980, 1, 255–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heider, F. The psychology of interpersonal relations. New York: Wiley, 1958.

    Google Scholar 

  • Horgan, D. D., & Reeder, G. Sexual harassment: The eye of the beholder. American Association of Occupational Health Nurses Journal, 1986, 34, 83–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., & McGillis, D. Correspondent inferences and the attribution cube: A comparative reappraisal. In J. H. Harvey, W. J. Ickes, & R. F. Kidd (Eds.), New directions in attribution research (Vol. 1). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum Associates, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., Davis, K., & Gergen, K. Role play variations and their informational value for person perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 1961, 63, 302–310.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H. The process of causal attribution. American Psychologist, 1973, 28, 107–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelley, H. H., & Michela, J. L. Attribution theory and research. Annual Review of Psychology, 1980, 31, 457–501.

    Google Scholar 

  • McArthur, L. Z. The how and what of why: Some determinants and consequences of causal attributions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1972, 22, 171–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, J. B. The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 1985, 13, 273–278.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, J. B. Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 1987, 17, 269–289.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quinn, R. E., & Lees, P. L. Attraction and harassment: Dynamics of sexual politics in the workplace. Organizational Dynamics, 1984, 6, 35–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Regan, D. T., & Totten, J. Empathy and attribution: Turning observers into actors. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 1975, 32, 850–856.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reilly, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K. The factorial survey: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38, 99–110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Somers, A. Sexual harassment in academe: Legal issues and definitions. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38, 23–32.

    Google Scholar 

  • Storms, M. D. Videotape and the attribution process: Reversing actors' and observers' point of view. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 1973, 27, 165–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • United States Merit Systems Protection Board. Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, DC.: Government Printing Office, 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weber-Burden, E., & Rossi, P. H. Defining sexual harassment on campus: A replication and extension. Journal of Social Issues, 1982, 38, 111–120.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wegner, D. M., & Guiliano, T. The forms of social awareness. In W. J. Ickes & E. S. Knowles (Eds.), Personality, roles and social behavior. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Illinois State University, 61761, Normal, IL

    John B. Pryor

  2. University of Notre Dame, USA

    Jeanne D. Day

Authors
  1. John B. Pryor
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jeanne D. Day
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The studies described in this article were reported in a presentation at the 1986 meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association in Chicago.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pryor, J.B., Day, J.D. Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional analysis. Sex Roles 18, 405–417 (1988). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288392

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00288392

Keywords

Search

Navigation