Who Says It's Sexual Harassment? The Effects of Gender and Likelihood to Sexually Harass on Legal Judgments of Sexual Harassment

Abstract

The effects of participants' gender and propensity to sexually harass were examined in a sexual harassment case in which the gender of the harassers and victim were manipulated systematically. Male and female participants scoring either high or low on the Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH) scale (Pryor, 1987) reviewed an ostensibly real hostile work environment case and made judgments about the case. When participants were the same gender as the victim, individual differences in LSH failed to influence their judgments. When the participants' gender was the opposite of the victim's, those low in LSH perceived the behaviors as more likely to be sexual harassment than those high in LSH. These results are discussed and their implications considered.

Sexual Harassment at Work: A Decade (Plus) of Progress

“…Much of what we know about harassers comes from research conducted using Pryor's (1987) Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH) scale, which "measures a readiness to use social power for sexually exploitive purposes" (Pryor, Lavite, & Stoller, 1993: 74). Most empirical research on LSH (both that before and after 1995) has focused on developing a personality profile of men (for exceptions, see Isbell, Swedish, & Gazan, 2005;Luthar & Luthar, 2008) who are likely to become sexual harassers. This research suggests that high LSH men are more likely than low LSH men to (a) be prone to sexual violence, that is, they express a likelihood to rape, hold adversarial sexual beliefs, and accept rape myths (e.g., Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995;Begany & Milburn, 2002;Pryor, 1987), (b) cognitively link the concept of social dominance with sexuality (Pryor & Stoller, 1994), (c) differentiate themselves from women, that is, they prefer traditional male sex-role stereotypes, rate themselves as less feminine, and are lower in empathy, which is a stereotypically feminine characteristic (Driscoll, Kelly, & Henderson, 1998;Pryor, 1987), (d) have negative and hostile attitudes toward women (Begany & Milburn, 2002;Driscoll et al, 1998), and (e) have personalities that are high in authoritarianism, low in honesty humility, and low in self-monitoring (Dall'Ara & Maas, 1999; K. Lee, Gizzarone, & Ashton, 2003;Pryor, 1987).…”

Falsification of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire: No Evidence of Systemic Sexual Harassment in Academic STEM

“…Emphasized again is that the history of case law leaves no doubt that sex-based harrying and verbal and physical sexual abuse remain problems in professional and social environments or that grievous personal or career outcomes may result [2][3][4][5]51]. Nothing in this critical analysis of the study methodology gainsays those facts nor should be seen to gainsay them.…”

“…There is no doubt that sex-based harrying and sexist verbal or physical abuse can be significant problems in professional or social environments nor that grievous personal or career outcomes may result. The legal history of sexual harassment demonstrates that case [2][3][4][5]. Therefore, the importance of distinguishing between the phenomenon and its study cannot be over-emphasized.…”