Defining Sexual Harassment on Campus: A Replication and Extension

Abstract

A factorial survey, designed to parallel a study conducted at the University of California (Reilly, Carpenter, Dull, & Bartlett, 1982), was used to assess judgments of the nature of sexual harassment among undergraduate students at the University of Massachusetts. The factors determining ratings of harassment proved to be very consistent across student populations and across different judgment tasks. However, there was some indication that the factors that influence defining an incident as sexual harassment are not entirely the same as the determinants of perceived seriousness of an incident.

Contrapower sexual harassment: The effects of student sex and type of behavior on faculty perceptions

“…In support of earlier research on forms of sexual harassment other than contrapower sexual harassment (e.g., Baker et aI., 1990;Reilly et aI., 1982;Rossi & Weber-Burdin, 1983;Weber-Burdin & Rossi, 1982), type of behavior portrayed in the vignette affected perceptions by the subjects. In general, obscene phone calls and explicit verbal/physical behavior were perceived as most serious and negative by subjects.…”

“…These experiments provide insight in terms of factors that affect perceptions of harassment in general. Reilly, Carpenter, Dull, and Bartlett (1982), Weber-Burdin and Rossi (1982), and Rossi and Weber-Burdin (1983) utilized factorial surveys to assess factors affecting judgments of situations as sexual harassment. Respondents (several hundred undergraduates in all three studies and a small number of faculty in the latter two studies) each read numerous vignettes describing an interaction between a female student and a male faculty member while several variables (e.g., status, types of behaviors, prior relationship) were manipulated.…”

Sexual Harassment Policy

“…In the past, the argument has been used that it is difficult to change behavior because "sexual harassment" is such a subjective concept-the "eye of the beholder" argument. Substantial research on definitions has shown consistent consensus among workers on definitions of sexual harassment, with gender differences occurring only with examples of "hostile environment," such as lewd jokes, pinups in the work area, and unwanted attention to appearance (Crocker, 1983;Fitzgerald, 1990;Frazier, Cochran, & Olson, 1995;Gutek, 1985;Reilly, Carpenter, Dull, & Bartlett, 1982;Weber-Burdin & Rossi, 1982). It is time to move from the assumption that implementation in this area is difficult because the subject is so controversial to the use of training and expectations similar to the best discipline policies to administer sexual harassment policies in the workplace.…”

Further Beyond Nine to Five: An Integration and Future Directions

“…Data from the MSPB survey (Livingston, 1982;Tangri, Burt, & Johnson, 1982), for instance, indicate that workers in the lowest status positions are those most likely to see sexual harassment by supervisors as a serious problem and to seek formal redress for protection from harassment. The vignette studies of perceived harassment in university settings (Redly, Carpenter, Dull, & Bartlett, 1982;Weber-Burdin, & Rossi, 1982) suggest that sexual behaviors initiated by lower-status instructors (graduate student teaching assistants) may be regarded as less serious or inappropriate than the same behaviors initiated by high-status faculty (professors). Respondents in Schneider's survey reported that, with the exception of serious sexual assaults, more socialsexual behaviors at work were initiated by co-workers than by bosses or supervisors, and such behaviors were responded to with less negative affect (more ambivalence) in the case of co-workers than of bosses.…”