The Religious Right, Attitudes toward Women, and Tolerance for Sexual Abuse

Attitudes Toward Women and Tolerance for Sexual Harassment Among Reservists

“…The idea that attitudes toward women represent an important predictor of tolerance for sexual harassment in the military is consistent with broader research findings indicating that men who possess more negative attitudes toward women are more prone toward aggression against women (Hull & Burke, 1991;Malamuth, 1988Malamuth, , 1989Malamuth & Brown, 1994;Malamuth et al, 1991). It is also consistent with the more limited finding that women who possess more traditional gender-role attitudes may be slower to label behaviors as sexual harassment and underplay the seriousness of the behavior and consequences (Jensen & Gutek, 1982;Malovich & Stake, 1990;Reilly, Lott, Caldwell, & DeLuca, 1992).…”

“…Yet, there may still be meaningful differences in attitudes toward women and tolerance for sexual harassment among those who have and have not been exposed to sexual harassment. A study by Hull and Burke (1991) found that women who had experienced sexual harassment or assault possessed more negative attitudes toward women and higher tolerance for sexual harassment. Thus, our findings may somewhat underestimate negative attitudes on the part of women because those with significant sexual harassment and assault histories were not included in this study.…”

“…Few studies have examined individual differences in attitudes toward women to address the question of why, in the same work environment, some individuals are more tolerant of sexual harassment than others (Tangri & Hayes, 1997). Research aimed at identifying individual difference factors that contribute to tolerance for sexual harassment is important given that more negative attitudes are implicated in the propensity to harass others and tolerate harassment directed toward oneself (e.g., Hull & Burke, 1991;Jensen & Gutek, 1982;Malamuth, 1988Malamuth, , 1989. In addition, tolerant attitudes contribute to a milieu in which others may more easily perpetrate violence without fearing negative consequences (Rosen & Martin, 1998c).…”

Behind the Pencil/Paper Measurement of Sexual Coercion: Interview‐Based Clarification of Men's Interpretations of Sexual Experiences Survey Items1

“…Clearly, the results of the current study indicate that caution is warranted in placing reliance on SES Item 2 as an index of abuse. Although no frequency data were reported by Hull and Burke (1991), from frequency data (e.g., Koss & Oros, 1982) it might be assumed that of the men endorsing any SES items, a relatively large proportion endorsed Item 2, rather than the other more serious items included on their survey (e.g., touching a woman's genitals or having intercourse when she "didn't really want to"). Therefore, it may be that a large proportion of men labeled as abusive may have been responding to Item 2 intending to express that a woman has expected more sexually than she actually received (or some other unique interpretation).…”

“…Attempts have been made to develop a unified theory of sexual aggression capable of accounting for both the similarities and differences among all sexually aggressive males by identifying key motivational factors in men's coercive behavior (e.g., Hall, 1990;Hall & Hirschman, 1991;Knight & Prentky, 1990;Malamuth, 1986;Malamuth et al, 1991;Prentky & Knight, 1991;Shotland, 1989). Following the assumptions underlying this model has led researchers such as Malamuth et al (1991) to approach all SES items as reflecting an underlying level of aggression toward women, whether it be verbal or physical attempts to gain sexual access.…”