Predictors of Responses to Unwanted Sexual Attention

Abstract

Data were collected from 4,011 male and female university students, faculty, and staff regarding responses to unwanted sexual attention. Women and undergraduate students reported the highest incidence of unwanted sexual attention; most harassers were peers. Ignoring the behavior was the most common response, followed by avoiding the harasser and talking to others about the harassment. Harassment severity was the strongest predictor of responses, with more direct responses being made to more severe harassment. Bivariate correlational analyses suggested that unwanted sexual attention was rated as more distressing by women than by men, by faculty/staff than by students, by individuals with less tolerant attitudes toward harassment, and when the harasser was in a position of authority or when the harassment was of longer duration. In path analyses, only the relations between attitudes and responses were mediated by differences in perceived severity. The gender and status (i.e., student vs. faculty/staff) of the harassee, the duration of the harassment, and whether the harasser was in a position of authority had direct effects on responses not attributable to perceived severity. Implications for policy and future research are discussed.

Sexual Harassment: Undermining the Wellbeing of Working Women

“…This work suggests that women are more likely to report sexual harassment when they are working in a position of low status and being harassed by an authority fi gure (e.g., Bergman et al 2002 ;Cochran et al 1997 ;Cortina 2004 ;Malamut and Offermann 2001 ;Rudman et al 1995 ). Non-Latina White women are more likely to report, whereas Latinas and other women from traditional collectivist cultures are less likely to report (Malamut and Offermann 2001 ;Rudman et al 1995 ;Watsi and Cortina 2002 ).…”

Sexual Harassment and the Real North Country: Revelations of an Expert Witness

“…Hence, organizational leaders, particularly those serving in human resource and legal capacities, should be well aware of this capacity for non-reporting. Since they know that lack of reporting is not in any way indicative of a lack of a sexually hostile environment (in Gruber and Smith (1995) 8 % C a n a d i a n w o m e n Bastian et al (1996) 24 % DOD employees Cochran et al (1997) 2 % University staff, faculty, and students Peirce et al (1997) fact, the opposite may actually be true: a lack of reporting may be the result of oppressive workplace conditions and a sexually hostile environment), leaders must be particularly vigilant in assessing the organizational environment regarding sexual harassment. Additionally, they must ensure that the policies, procedures, and practices of the organization minimize these fears by taking seriously all reports of sexual harassment and guaranteeing that any retaliation against targets will be met with swift and harsh punishment.…”

Diagnosis of psychological impairment in employment discrimination claims

“…Plaintiffs often suppress discussion of their injuries, particularly when disclosure reveals sexual and emotional vulnerabilities (Goodman-Delahunty & Foote, 1995) and may result in furrher traumatization (Cochran, Frazier, & Olson, 1995;Gutek & Koss, 1993;Malovich & Stake, 1990). In this situation, an expert may be influential in explaining that an avoidance of the topic and a reluctance to discuss emotional harm are manifestations of the injuries.…”