Abstract
This study was designed to examine the characteristics of a sexual harassment schema and its consequences using expectancy-violation theory as a framework for investigating an ostensible organizational grievance. Reactions to sexual harassment complainants were expected to be less favorable when the complainant was male than when the complainant was female. Results for the complainants of sexual harassment confirmed that men were believed less, liked less, and punished more than women. Furthermore, the tendency to believe and like female complainants more than male complainants was stronger when complainants were physically attractive. This study contributes to a growing body of research on gender schemas in the context of sexual harassment.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Baird, C. L., Bensko, N. L., Bell, P. A., Viney, W., & Woody, W. D. (1995). Gender influence on perceptions of hostile environment sexual harassment. Psychological Reports, 77, 79–82.
Bartlett, F. C. (1932). Remembering: An experimental and social study. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Bem, S. L. (1981). Gender schema theory: A cognitive account of sex typing. Psychological Review, 88, 354–364.
Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1997). Refining sex-role spillover theory: The role of gender subtypes and harasser attributions. Social Cognition, 15, 291–311.
Burgoon, M., Dillard, J. P., & Doran, N. E. (1983). Friendly or unfriendly persuasion: The effects of violations of expectations by males and females. Human Communication Research, 10, 283–293.
Burgoon, J., & Hale, J. (1988). Nonverbal expectancy violations: Model elaboration and application to immediacy behaviors. Communication Monographs, 55, 58–79.
Cialdini, R. B. (2001). Influence: Science and practice. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon.
Cummings, K. M., & Armenta, M. (2002). Penalties for peer sexual harassment in an academic context: The influence of harasser gender, participant gender, severity of harassment, and the presence of bystanders. Sex Roles, 47, 273–280.
Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirming bias in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44, 20–33.
DeSouza, E. R., & Solberg, J. (2004). Women’s and men’s reactions to man-to-man sexual harassment: Does the sexual orientation of the victim matter? Sex Roles, 50, 623–639.
Dion, K., Berscheid, E., & Walster, E. (1972). What is beautiful is good. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 285–290.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Reporting sex differences. American Psychologist, 42, 755–756.
Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but... A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109–128.
Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
Eagly, A. H., Karau, S. J., & Makhijani, M. G. (1995). Gender and the effectiveness of leaders: A meta-analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 125–145.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) (2003). Sexual harassment charges EEOC & FEPAs combined: FY 1991–FY 2003. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/harass.html.
Fiske, S. T. (1993). Social cognition and social perception. Annual Review of Psychology, 44, 155–194.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589.
Golden, J. H., Johnson, C. A., & Lopez, R. A. (2001). Sexual harassment in the workplace: Exploring the effects of physical attractiveness on perception of harassment. Sex Roles, 45, 767–784.
Hand, J. Z., & Sanchez, L. (2000). Badgering or bantering? Gender differences in experience of, and reactions to, sexual harassment among U.S. high school students. Gender & Society, 14, 718–746.
Hatfield, E., & Sprecher, S. (1986). Mirror, mirror... The importance of looks in everyday life. Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Jussim, L., Coleman, L. M., & Lerch, L. (1987). The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of three theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 536–546.
LaRocca, M. A., & Kromrey, J. D. (1999). The perception of sexual harassment in higher education: Impact of gender and attractiveness. Sex Roles, 40, 921–932.
Marin, A. J., & Guadango, R. E. (1999). Perceptions of sexual harassment victims as a function of labeling and reporting. Sex Roles, 41, 921–940.
Popovich, P. M., Gehlauf, D. N., Jolton, J. A., Everton, W. J., Godinho, R. M., Mastrangelo, P. M., et al. (1996). Physical attractiveness and sexual harassment: Does every picture tell a story or every story draw a picture? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 520–542.
Wayne, J. H., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, K. M. (2001). Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 179–187.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Madera, J.M., Podratz, K.E., King, E.B. et al. Schematic Responses to Sexual Harassment Complainants: The Influence of Gender and Physical Attractiveness. Sex Roles 56, 223–230 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9165-1
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9165-1