Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments

A test of the reasonable woman standard

  • Articles
  • Published:
Law and Human Behavior

Abstract

This paper presents a brief psycholegal analysis of hostile work environment sexual harassment law especially as it distinguishes between the reasonable person and reasonable woman tests of severity and pervasiveness. We tested two hypotheses: (1) women (but not men) would show stronger judgments of harassment when using the reasonable woman standard, and (2) this relationship would be strongest for women who identified with harassed victims and men who did not. We presented to a sample of undergraduates an in-group identification measurement task followed by the fact patterns in two cases and asked them to make legally relevant decisions under either the reasonable woman or person standard. Although we found gender and in-group identification effects, we found no legal standard effects. The results are discussed from the perspectives of law and psychology.

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

  • Adler, R. S., & Pierce, E. R. (1993). The legal, ethical, and social implications of the “Reasonable Woman” standard in sexual harassment cases.Fordham Law Review, 41(4), 773–827.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469 (3d Cir. 1990).

  • Austen v. State of Hawaii, 759 F.Supp 612 (D. Haw. 1991).

  • Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1989). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A reexamination of gender differences.Journal of Psychology, 124, 409–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brewer, M. B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis.Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307–324.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burns v. McGregor Electronic Industries, Inc., 989 F.2d (8th Cir. 1993).

  • Canada v. Boyd Group, Inc., 809 F. Supp 771 (D. Nev. 1992).

  • Collins, E.G.C., & Blodgett, T. B. (1981). Sexual harassment: Some see it ... and some won't.Harvard Business Review (March/April), 79–95.

  • EEOC, 29 CFR 1609.1 (1993).

  • Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991).

  • Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. (1991).Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace.American Psychologist, 48, 1070–1076.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and context.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281–294.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaertner, S. L., Mann, J., Murrel, A., & Dovido, J. F. (1989). Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239–249.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gervasio, A. H., & Ruckdeschel, K. (1992). College students' judgments of verbal sexual harassment.Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 190–211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey v Perkin Elmer Corp. (1992).

  • Gutek, B. A. (1992). Understanding sexual harassment at work.Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 6(2), 335–358.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A., & Cohen, A. G. (1987). Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sex at work: A comparison of men's and women's experiences.Human Relations, 40, 97–115.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Konrad, A. M. (1990). Predicting social-sexual behavior at work: A contact hypothesis.Academy of Management Journal, 33, 560–577.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex ratios, sex role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1982). Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 62 LW 4004 (1993).

  • Johnson, J. B., Stockdale, M. S., & Saal, F. E. (1991). Persistence of men's misperceptions of friendly cues across a variety of interpersonal encounters.Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 463–475.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Jones, E. E., & Nisbett, R. E. (1972). The actor and the observer: Divergent perceptions of the causes of behavior. In E. E. Jones, D. E. Kanouse, H. H. Kelley, R. E. Nisbett, S. Valins, & B. Weiner (Eds.),Attribution: Perceiving the causes of behavior (pp. 79–94). Morristown, NJ: General Learning Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jones, E. E., Wood, G. C., & Quattrone, G. A. (1981). Perceived variability of personal characteristics in ingroups and outgroups: The role of knowledge and evaluation.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 54, 523–528.

    Google Scholar 

  • Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1988). Outgroup homogeneity: Judgments of variability at the individual and group levels.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 778–788.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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 

  • Konrad, A. M., & Gutek, B. A. (1986). Impact of work experiences on attitudes toward sexual harassment.Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 422–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of characteristics of ingroup and outgroup members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165–188.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., & Miller, N. (1987). Ten years of research on the false-consensus effect: An empirical and theoretical review.Psychological Bulletin, 102, 72–90.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mazer, D. B., & Percival, E. F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The relationships among perceptions, attitudes and experiences of sexual harassment in university students.Sex Roles, 20, 135–170.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinney, K. (1990). Sexual harassment of university faculty by colleagues and students.Sex Roles, 23, 421–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57, (1986).

  • Monahan, J., & Walker L. (1991). Judicial use of social science research.Law and Human Behavior, 15, 571–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mullen, B., & Hu, L. (1988). Social projection as a function of cognitive mechanisms: Two meta-analytic integrations.British Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 333–356.

    Google Scholar 

  • O'Connor, M., & Gutek, B. A. (in press). A psycholegal analysis of the reasonable woman standard.Journal of Social Issues.

  • Padgitt, S. C., & Padgitt, J. S. (1986). Cognitive structure of sexual harassment: Implications for university policy.Journal of College Student Personnel, 34, 682–689.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., & Judd, C. M. (1990). Measures and models of perceived group variability.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 173–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, B., & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051–1068.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G. N. (1986). Effects or sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment.Sex Roles, 18, 405–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, J. B. (1985). The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment.Sex Roles, 13, 273–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pryor, J. B., & Day, J. D. (1988). Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional analysis.Sex Roles, 18, 405–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Quattrone, G. A., & Jones, E. E. (1980). The perception of variability within in-group and out-groups: Implications for the law of small numbers.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 141–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986).

  • Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards, Inc., 760 F.Supp 1486 (M.D.Fla 1991).

  • Rubin, L. J., & Borgers, S. B., (1990). Sexual harassment in universities during the 1980s.Sex Roles, 23, 397–411.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scott, J. E., Eitle, E. J., & Skovron, S. E. (1990). Obscenity and the law: Is it possible for a jury to apply contemporary community standards in determining obscenity?Law and Human Behavior, 14, 139–150.

    Google Scholar 

  • Summers, R. J. (1991). Determinants of judgments of and responses to a complaint of sexual harassment.Sex Roles, 25, 379–392.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1986). The social identity theory of in-group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. G. Austin (Eds.)Psychology of intergroup relations (2nd ed., pp. 7–24). Chicago: Nelson-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thomann, 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 

  • Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000c-(a)(1) (1964).

  • Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell, M. (1987).Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford, England: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valantine-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 

  • Wiener, R. L. (in press). Social analytic jurisprudence in sexual harassment litigation: The role of social framework and social fact.Journal of Social Issues.

  • Wiener, R. L. (1993). Social Analytic Jurisorudence and Tort Law: Social Cognition Goes to Court.Saint Louis University Law Journal, 37(3), 503–551.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, K. B., & Cyr, R. R. (1992). Escalating commitment to a relationship: The sexual harassment trap.Sex Roles, 27, 47–72.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilder, D. A. (1986). Social categorization: Implications for creating and reduction of intergroup bias. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.),Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 19, pp. 291–355). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yates v. Avco Corp., 819 F2.d 630 (6th Cir. 1987).

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, 221 N. Grand Blvd., 63103, St. Louis, MO

    Richard L. Wiener Ph.D.

Authors
  1. Richard L. Wiener Ph.D.
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Barbara A. Watts
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Kristen H. Goldkamp
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Charles Gasper
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard L. Wiener Ph.D..

Additional information

The authors wish to thank Dr. Audrey Wiener for her thoughtful comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript.

About this article

Cite this article

Wiener, R.L., Watts, B.A., Goldkamp, K.H. et al. Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments. Law Hum Behav 19, 263–281 (1995). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01501660

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01501660

Keywords

Search

Navigation