Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism.

Abstract

This research tests the possibility that the reasonable woman as compared to the reasonable person test of hostile work environment sexual harassment interacts with hostile and benevolent sexist beliefs and under some conditions triggers protectionist attitudes toward women who complain of sexual harassment, We administered to a sample of undergraduates the ambivalent sexism inventory along with the fact patterns in two harassment cases and asked them to make legally relevant decisions under either the reasonable woman or person standard. We found that those high in hostile sexism, and women, found more evidence of harassment. However, those high in benevolent sexism did not exhibit the hostile sexism effects. Although men were less sensitive to the reasonable woman standard than women, under some conditions the reasonable woman standard enabled both genders to find greater evidence of harassment. The results are discussed from the perspectives of law and psychology.Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 as amended in 1991 prohibits an employer from discriminating against an individual with respect to compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The courts have applied Title VII's prohibition against gender discrimination to outlaw two types of sexual harassment First, employers may not exact sexual contact in exchange for compensation or advancement (Henson v. City of Dundee, 1982; and Miller v. Bank of Am., 1979) and second they may not subject workers to intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environments because of their gender

“It was only harmless banter!” The development and preliminary validation of the moral disengagement in sexual harassment scale

“…These actions are instrumental to the individual in creating a disparaging and humiliating climate for female workers who are perceived to violate traditional gender ideals and encroach on male territory (e.g., by being seen to take on a man's job). Moreover, our findings support extant research reporting that males high (versus low) in HS evaluate ambiguous social-sexual misconduct as less indicative of hostile work environment harassment (Wiener & Hurt, 2000;Wiener et al, 1997;Wiener et al, 2010). As BS encompasses attitudes toward women that are subjectively positive in tone and comparatively more chivalrous (albeit sexist in terms of viewing women in restricted social and economic roles) than HS, it is understandable that BS should correlate with the MDiSH at a smaller magnitude or indeed be unrelated.…”

“…Studies consistently document that men who are higher in HS (but not BS) evaluate ambiguous social-sexual misconduct as less indicative of hostile work environment harassment when using the "reasonable person" legal standard (see Wiener & Hurt, 2000;Wiener, Hurt, Russell, Mannen, & Gasper, 1997;Wiener et al, 2010). It has also been reported that HS (but not BS) positively predicts greater tolerance of sexual harassment (Russell & Trigg, 2004).…”

Sexismo y alexitimia: Correlaciones y diferencias en función del género, la edad, y el nivel de estudios

“…The men's higher scores in HS and BS confirm the results obtained in other studies (Feather, 2004;Feather & Boeckmann, 2007;Forbes et al 2004;Forbes et al 2007;Fowers & Fowers, 2010;Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2011a, 2011bGlick & Fiske, 1996;Glick et al 1997;Lameiras & Rodríguez, 2003;Lameiras et al 2007;Lee et al 2007;Liang, 2007;Masser y Abrams, 1999;Pozo et al 2010;Russel & Trigg, 2004;Travaglia et al 2009;Viki et al 2003;Wiener & Hurt, 2000;Wiener et al 1997). However, other investigations did not find gender differences in BS (Chen et al 2009;Eastwick et al 2006;Expósito et al 1998;Lameiras & Rodríguez, 2002;Lameiras et al 2006;Pereira et al 2005;Sakalli-Ugurlu, 2010;Sakalli-Ugurlu et al 2007;Tasdemir & Sakalli-Ugurlu, 2010;Vaamonde, 2010).…”

“…Some studies have reported that men score significantly higher in HS and BS (Feather, 2004;Feather & Boeckmann, 2007;Forbes, Adams-Curtis & White, 2004;Forbes, Collinsworth, Jobe, Braun & Wise, 2007;Fowers & Fowers, 2010;Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2011a, 2011bGlick & Fiske, 1996;Glick, Diebold, Bailey-Werner & Zhu, 1997;Lameiras & Rodríguez, 2003;Lameiras, Rodríguez, Calado, Foltz & Carrera, 2007;Lee, Pratto & Li, 2007;Liang, 2007;Masser & Abrams, 1999;Pozo, Martos & Alonso, 2010;Russel & Trigg, 2004;Travaglia, Overall & Sibley, 2009;Viki, Abrams & Hutchison, 2003;Wiener & Hurt, 2000;Wiener, Hurt, Russell, Mannen & Gasper, 1997). However, other investigations found no gender differences in BS (Chen, Fiske & Lee, 2009;Eastwick et al 2006;Expósito, Moya & Glick, 1998;Garaigordobil & Aliri, 2012;Glick, Sakalli-Ugurlu, Ferreira & Aguiar de Souza, 2002;Lameiras & Rodríguez, 2002;Lameiras, Rodríguez, Calado, Foltz & González, 2006;Pereira, Gouveia, da Silva & Marques, 2005;Sakalli-Ugurlu, 2010;Sakalli-Ugurlu, Sila Yalcin & Glick, 2007;Tasdemir & Sakalli-Ugurlu, 2010;Vaamonde, 2010), or else they found higher scores in men but only up to the age of 42 years (Lameiras, Rodríguez & González, 2004).…”

The effects of sexual harassment severity and organizational policy and response on juror damage awards

“…To date, researchers have examined how jurors make liability decisions in sexual harassment cases (Gutek et al, 1999;Kovera, McAuliff, & Hebert, 1999;Wiener, Hurt, Russell, Mannen, & Gasper, 1997;Wiener, Watts, Goldkamp, & Gasper, 1995) but have ignored what happens after jurors find a defendant liable (Kovera & Cass, 2002). …”