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

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

Judgments of Sexual Harassment’

LINDA M. IS BELL^ KRISTIN SWEDISH University of Massachusetts at Amherst Amherst College

DANIEL B. GAZAN3 Jefleiy L. Goldberg, P C. Attorneys at Law

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.

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, amended in 1991, prohibits employers from engaging in “intentional discrimination and unlawful harassment in the workplace” (Civil Rights Act, 1991) on the basis of race, color, religion, gender, or national origin. The prohibition of gender discrimination has been applied to outlaw two legally recognized types of sexual harassment that have been dis- tinguished by the U.S. Supreme Court (Meritor Savings Bank v. V?nsan, 1986). Quidpro quo sexual harassment occurs when sexual behavior becomes a term or condition of employment or advancement (Henson v. City of Dundee, 1982;

‘This research and the preparation of this article were partially supported by a Faculty Research Grant FRG-03426 from the University of Massachusetts. The authors thank Robert S. Wyer, Ronnie Janoff-Bulman, Paula Pietromonaco, and Richard Wiener for their helpful comments on an earlier version of this article.

*Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Linda M. Isbell, Department of Psychology, University of Massachusetts at Amherst, 630 Tobin Hall, Amherst, MA 01003. E-mail: Iisbell@,psych.umass.edu

3Daniel 9. Gazan, Esq. passed away November 7, 2001. Dan was a vivacious young attorney who dedicated his short life to prosecuting sexual harassment cases. Dan inspired this research and played a pivotal role in developing the ideas contained in this article. We dedicate this article to his memory and are thankful for his inspiration, enthusiasm, and devotion to his work.

745

Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 2005,35, 4, pp. 745-772. Copyright 0 2005 by V. H. Winston & Son, Inc. All rights reserved.

746 ISBELL ET AL.

Miller v. Bank of America, 1979). Hostile environment sexual harassment occurs when sexual behavior creates an “intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment” (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission [EEOC], 200 1 ; Harris v. Forklqt Systems, Inc., 1993; Meritor Savings Bank v. Mnson, 1986).

Legally, the plaintiff must demonstrate that the treatment that he or she experienced was a result of his or her gender and was unwelcome and “sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of employment and create an abusive working environment” (Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 1986, p. 60). To the extent that the misconduct is not particularly severe (e.g., involving intentional touching of intimate areas of the body), the plaintiff must establish that the misconduct occurred repeatedly. Further, in 1993, the U.S. Supreme Court formally asserted that the misconduct must be perceived as abusive not only by the plaintiff, but also by reasonable others (Harris v. Forklgt Systems, Inc., 1993), and chose not to reject or endorse the reasonable-woman standard employed by the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals (Ellison v. Brady, 1991). This standard posits that men and women may have different perceptions of what constitutes unacceptable social sexual behavior and, thus, the behaviors in question must be perceived as abusive by a reasonable woman.

The different legal standards, which will be discussed more later, emphasize that men and women may interpret social sexual behavior differently. In fact, much of the research on hostile work environment sexual harassment has focused on individuals’ perceptions of social sexual conduct and the factors that influence these perceptions (e.g., Jones, Remland, & Brunner, 1987; Thomann & Wiener, 1987; Wiener, Hurt, Russell, Mannen, & Gasper, 1997; Wiener, Watts, Goldkamp, & Gasper, 1995). Further, most of this research has investigated the sexual harassment of women by men, the most prominent form of sexual harassment. Less typical is the sexual harassment of men. However, as more women enter the work force, female harassment of males is likely to become more common (Popovich, 1988; Verespej, 1995).

In surveying federal employees about their experiences of unwanted sexual attention, the United States Merit Systems Protection Board (USMSPD, 198 1, 1988, 1995) found that the number of male federal workers who reported being sexually harassed at work increased from 15% in 198 1 and 14% in 1988 to 19% in 1994. Of those reporting harassment in the most recent survey, the majority (65%) of the harassed men identified women as the perpetrators. Further, the Department of Defense 1995 sexual harassment survey of active-duty military members (Bastian, Lancaster, & Reyst, 1996) found that the majority of men who experienced unwanted sexual attention reported that women were the offenders (Magley, Waldo, Drasgow, & Fitzgerald, 1999).4

40verall, in this survey, 38.0% of men and 78.0% of women reported at least one sex-related behavior that could be considered sexual harassment (Bastian et al., 1996, as cited (jootnote continues)

SEXUAL HARASSMENT 747

Evidence of male harassment by women is not only evident in survey data, it is also evident in recent legal cases. In 1994, eight men sued Jenny Craig Inter- national, Inc., accusing their former female managers of harassment, claiming that they were asked to perform stereotypically male tasks unrelated to their work (e.g., shoveling snow) and were complimented on their “tight buns.” They were informed that promotion would require a “sex-change operation” and a “push-up bra” (Rhode, 1999). Sabino Guiterrez was awarded over $1 million in a civil suit he brought against his female manager, accusing her of sexually harassing him in the form of demands for dinner, dates, and sex over a 6-year period (Perry, Kulik, & Schmidtke, 1998). In a more recent case, an EEOC administrative judge found for plaintiff Timothy Lubina in his suit claiming that his Office of Personnel Management supervisor had used her position of authority to subject him to unwanted hugging and kissing. In the decision, the administrative judge acknowledged that a man might not initially identify the type of behavior involved as sexual harassment because it involves a reversal of the conventional pattern of a man harassing a woman (Federal EEO Advisor, 2001). Thus, despite the fact that many individuals view the sexual harassment of males by females to be uncommon, such harassment does occur, and it is the most common form of male sexual harassment. Despite this, research examining individuals’ perceptions of these types of cases is scarce (however, see Wayne, Riordan, & Thomas,

The purpose of the present research is to examine men’s and women’s perceptions of legal cases involving male and female victims of cross-gender sexual harassment. We decided to study perceptions of sexual harassment in legal cases because we are interested in meaningful sexual harassment judgments that are guided by concrete legal criteria (e.g., severity, pervasiveness), rather than individuals’ own general personal beliefs and opinions about what constitutes inappropriate social sexual behavior. Further, consistent with other researchers in this area (e.g., Wiener et al., 2002), we believe that examining perceptions of sexual harassment in a legal context using concrete, legally relevant judgments allows psychological research to inform judicial decision making in a meaningful

2001).

Footnote 4 continued-in Hay & Elig, 1999). Women were more likely than men to report that the offender was of the opposite gender (92.0% versus 32.0%), whereas same-gender sex-related behaviors were reported considerably more often by men than by women (52.0% vs. 1.6%). Importantly, however, the vast majority (over 90.0%) of the male-to-male sex-related behaviors are considered sexual or sexist hostility and includes “behaviors such as the distribution of sexually suggestive mate- rial, telling offensive sexual stories or jokes, and making crude or offensive sexual remarks.” In contrast to these behaviors, the current research is concerned with perceptions of male and female victims of cross-gender harassment that involves unwanted sexual attention. According to the 1995 Depart- ment of Defense survey (Bastian et al., 1996), men and women were more likely to experience unwanted sexual attention from a member of the opposite gender than they were to experience it from a member of the same gender.

748 ISBELL ET AL.

way. Additionally, such research has important implications for managers and employees in organizational settings where sexual harassment complaints must be investigated, evaluated, and acted upon. Knowledge of sexual harassment law and the biases that may exist when individuals apply the law is essential in order to handle such complaints properly and potentially to reduce corporate liability that may result from mishandling them.

In the current study, we expect that differences in individuals’ own propensity to engage in sexually harassing behavior will moderate the effects of perceiver gender and case type (male vs. female victim) on legally relevant judgments of sexual harassment. To examine this, we developed a hostile work environment sexual harassment case and manipulated whether the case involved two females harassing a male coworker or two males harassing a female coworker, while leaving all other case facts the same. We then exposed male and female participants who scored either high or low on the Likelihood to Sexually Harass scale (LSH; Pryor, 1987) to either the case involving the male or the female victim. After reading through the case, participants reported their perceptions of the case, including the extent to which the defendants’ behaviors fit the legal definition of sexual harassment, the extent to which they considered the behavior to be sexually harassing, and the extent to which the plaintiffs work performance was negatively affected as a result of the defendants’ behavior.

Perceptions of Sexual Harassment

Prior research has shown sexual harassment to be a fairly subjective concept. An incident perceived to be sexual harassment by one person might not be considered so by another, and the gender of the perceiver has been shown to affect such perceptions (e.g., Baird, Bensko, Bell, Viney, & Woody, 1995; Baker, Terpstra, & Larntz, 1990; Gutek & O’Connor, 1995; Jones & Remland, 1992; Loredo, Reid, & Deaux, 1995; Marks & Nelson, 1993; Mazer & Percival, 1989; Popovich, Gehlauf, Jolton, Somers, & Godinho, 1992). Specifically, many studies have revealed that women are more likely than men to perceive social sexual behavior as sexually harassing (for a recent meta-analysis, see Rotundo, Nguyen, & Sackett, 2001). Some (e.g., Popovich et al., 1996) attribute these gender differences to in-group identification in which individuals have a tendency to attend to and identify with the party of their own gender in the stereotypical harassment situation.

Women also have been found to use a broader definition of what constitutes unacceptable social sexual behavior and, as a result, are more likely than men to perceive specific incidents as harassing (e.g., Burgess & Borgida, 1997; Fitzgerald & Ormerod, 1991; Gutek, 1995; Gutek & O’Conner, 1995; Jones & Remland, 1992; Mazer & Percival, 1989; Padgitt & Padgitt, 1986; Pryor, 1985; Reilly, Lott, & Gallogly, 1986; Williams, Brown, Lees-Haley, & Price, 1997).


According to questionnaire and interview data collected from individuals reporting about their jobs, Gutek, Cohen, and Konrad (1990) found that women are more likely to find social sexual behaviors to be harassing, even when both genders report experiencing an equal amount of social sexual behavior on the job.

Although a significant number of studies have found gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment, several researchers have suggested that these effects are not as pervasive as studies have concluded. For example, in an empirical review of the literature, Gutek and O’Connor (1 995; see also Goodman- Delahunty, 1999; Gutek et al., 1999) found evidence for gender differences in perceptions of hostile work environment harassment, but found that the effects tended to be small and were most likely to emerge in scenario studies in which participants judged short, ambiguous descriptions of social sexual behavior. Further, gender differences generally are not found in situations in which the sexual behavior is severe (e.g., Blakely, Blakely, & Moorman, 1995; Burgess & Borgida, 1997; Gowan & Zimmerman, 1996; Williams et al., 1997).

In the present study, we examine participants’ sexual harassment judgments after reading a detailed summary of a case involving either a male or a female victim of cross-gender hostile work environment sexual harassment. In our research, we used an ambiguous case and, therefore, anticipated that gender differences may emerge.

Legal Relevance of Gender Differences

Despite the fact that numerous studies have found evidence for gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment, prior to 1990, the EEOC failed to take these differences into account, and a reasonable-person standard was applied to sexual harassment cases. This standard required an inquiry into whether the evidence offered in a case would lead a reasonable person in a similar environment under similar circumstances to find the environment offensive enough to constitute harassment (EEOC, 1990; Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 1993; Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 1986). In 1990, the EEOC endorsed a more liberal definition of sexual harassment (Wiener et al., 1997), which led some courts to adopt a reasonable-woman standard (Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 1990; Ellison v. Brady, 1991). This standard analyzes harassment from the victim’s perspective and takes into account the different perspectives of men and women because “conduct that many men consider unobjectionable may offend many women” (Ellison v. Brady, 1991).5 Research (Wiener & Hurt, 2000; Wiener et al., 1995,

*These different legal standards (reasonable person and reasonable women) created contrary results, which were ostensibly applying the same law, in different federal courts across the country. The Supreme Court discarded these disjunctive standards in favor of a gender-neutral two-part test that evaluates conduct in the workplace from both an objective and a subjective Voofnote confinues)

750 ISBELL ET AL.

1997) has demonstrated that men are more likely to perceive social sexual behavior toward women to be sexual harassment if a reasonable-woman standard is used.

Female Versus Male Ectims of Cross-Gender Sexual Harassment

Unwanted sexual attention from women is often not regarded as threatening to men, but rather flattering, and some men even indicate that they believe that being sexually harassed would be a positive experience (Berdahl, Magley, & Waldo, 1996). Some studies have found that the same potentially harassing behavior was judged as more harassing when conducted by a man toward a woman than the reverse (Baird et al., 1995; Gutek, Morasch, & Cohen, 1983; Hendrix, Rueb, & Steel, 1998; Jones & Remland, 1992; Katz, Hannon, & Whitten, 1996; LaRocca & Kromrey, 1999). However, Wayne et al. (2001) found that participants assigned more guilt to a female who harassed a male coworker than to a male who harassed a female coworker. They reasoned that female harassers were evaluated more negatively because their harassment violates sex- role norms expecting women to be passive receptors, not aggressive initiators of sexual activity. Other researchers (e.g., Hartnett, Robinson, & Singh, 1989; Loredo et al., 1995; Marks & Nelson, 1993) have found no differences in participants’ perceptions of male and female harassers.

Research also has investigated the effects of perceiver gender on perceptions of cross-gender harassment involving male and female victims. LaRocca and Kromrey (1999) found that, when presented with ambiguous sexual harassment vignettes, female participants perceived more sexual harassment than did male participants, regardless of the gender of the harasser. However, Katz et al. (1 996) and Hendrix et al. (1998) found that females rated both male and female harassers as equally harassing when evaluating social sexual interactions between men and women, while male perceivers rated male harassers as more harassing than female harassers. This research suggests that men seem to apply a different standard for defining sexual harassment based on whether a man or woman harasses; women seem to be more consistent in their views, regardless of the gender of the perpetrator (Katz et al., 1996).

As this review indicates, the research conducted to date has resulted in numerous inconsistent findings. The current research is designed to further explore men’s and women’s perceptions of sexual harassment as a function of

Footnote 5 continued-perspective (Harris v. Forklft Systems, Inc., 1993; see also Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 1998; Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 1998). This standard has resulted in an analysis whereby ifjurors find that the conduct was personally offensive to the plaintiff and also find that the offender’s behavior objectively constituted sexual harassment, then the plaintiffs rights are deemed violated and he or she is entitled to monetary damages as a victim of sexual harassment.


(a) the match between the gender of the victim and the gender of the perceiver, and (b) the perceiver’s own propensity to sexually harass.

Individual Differences in the Likelihood to Sexually Harass

Previous research has determined that certain individuals are more likely than others to engage in severe forms of cross-gender sexual harassment (Pryor, 1987). We expect that such propensities to harass will influence individuals’ perceptions of social sexual behavior.

The Likelihood to Sexually Harass (LSH) scale was developed by Pryor (1 987) to measure men’s propensity to commit sexual exploitation, legally defined as quid pro quo sexual harassment. The original LSH instrument consists of 10 hypothetical situations in which males are asked to imagine themselves in a position in which they have the ability to sexually exploit a female target and rate the likelihood that they would do so. In validating the LSH scale, Pryor and Meyers (2000) found that this scale correlates with scales relating to sexual violence, traditional sex-role stereotyping, attitudes toward women, authoritari- anism, rape myth acceptance, and scales relating to sexual behavior. Based on correlational data, Pryor, Giedd, and Williams (1995) concluded that men with a propensity to harass are inclined to engage in other sexually violent behaviors, are hypermasculine, and view sex in terms of social domination. Those who score high on the LSH scale are more sexist than those who score low.

Although the LSH scale measures the propensity to engage in sexual exploitation, it has been shown to be a valid predictor of other forms of sexually harassing tendencies and behavior (e.g., Pryor, 1987; Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller, 1993; Pryor & Stoller, 1994). For example, Pryor (1987) asked men who scored high and low on the LSH scale to train an attractive female confederate to putt with a golf club, a situation in which the men had the opportunity to sexually harass her (defined as unsolicited sexual touching). He found that high LSH men tended to touch the confederate in a sexual way and made verbal sexual overtures, whereas low LSH men did neither. Rudman and Borgida (1995) also found that when asked to conduct a mock job interview with a female confederate, high LSH men tended to behave in a more dominant and sexualized manner than did those low in LSH. Thus, LSH not only differentiates people in quid pro quo sexual harassment situations, but also has predictive value in cases of hostile work environment sexual harassment.

Although the LSH scale was designed to evaluate men’s propensity to sexually harass, researchers (Perry, Schmidtke, & Kulik, 1998) have recently applied the LSH construct to women. Perry et al. altered Pryor’s (1987) measure, expanding the situations to include the possibility of a female exploiting a male in order to assess gender differences in propensity to sexually harass. In their revised version, they changed the genders of the potential harasser and victim

752 ISBELL ET AL.

and revised job titles and adjectives so that they would be gender-appropriate. They found that women scored lower on the LSH measure than did men, and women’s scores clustered in the lower half of the LSH scale while men’s scores were more variable. In addition to these differences, Perry et al. also uncovered different underlying factor structures for men and women.6 The different structures revealed that men’s responses to the LSH scale reflect differences in sexual attraction between the target and the harasser, whereas women’s responses reflect differences in power between the target and the harasser. According to Perry et al., the definition of sexual attraction is broader for men than for women. In contrast, the definition of power is broader for women than for men, and tends to include more indirect and personal sources of power (e.g., manipulation and liking, respectively) than formal or legitimate sources (Cleveland & Kerst, 1993; Johnson, 1976).

Hypotheses

Personal factors have been shown to influence the extent to which perceivers judge social sexual behaviors to be sexual harassment. No prior research has investigated the influence of a person’s proclivity to sexually harass on his or her perceptions of sexual harassment. In addition, research on women who score high and low on the LSH scale is scarce. In the present research, we hypothesize that when the gender of the perceiver matches the victim’s, perceivers are likely to identify with the victim. In these conditions, a perceiver’s propensity to sexually harass (as measured by the LSH scale) should not influence his or her judgments. In contrast, in cases in which the participants’ gender is the opposite of the victim’s, perceivers should be less able to identify with the victim. In these cases, differences in perceivers’ LSH should influence their judgments. Specifically, we hypothesize that participants who are high in LSH, compared to those who are low in LSH, will adopt a higher threshold for identifying sexually harassing behaviors as such. Consequently, these participants should be less likely to judge the defendants’ conduct as consistent with the definition of sexual harassment.

Method

Participants

Participants (8 1 male, 8 1 female) were recruited from undergraduate psychology courses at a large public university and took part in this study for extra course credit. All participants were recruited on the basis of their responses to an abbreviated version of the Likelihood to Sexually Harass scale (Pryor, 1987), which

6As Pew, Schmidtke, et al. (1998) noted, the items on Pryor’s (1987) LSH scale generally all load on one factor, although this is not always the case.


they completed as a part of a mass prescreening that took place at the beginning of the semester. The majority of the sample was Caucasian (89%), heterosexual (98%), and ranged in age from 18 to 28 years, with an average age of 19 years.

Design

The experiment was designed as a 2 x 2 x 2 (Likelihood to Sexually Harass: High vs. Low x Participant Gender x Male HarasserIFemale Victim vs. Female HarasserdMale Victim) between-subjects design.7 Participants were selected to be in either the high or low LSH group based on their score on the abbreviated version of the LSH scale administered at the beginning of the semester. With the exception of participants’ own gender and their LSH group, participants were randomly assigned to the remaining experimental conditions.

Prescreening Questionnaire

An abbreviated version of the LSH scale (Pryor & DeSouza, 1999, as cited in Pryor & Meyers, 2000) was administered in a prescreen testing of 2,257 students (720 male, 1,537 females) at the beginning of the Fall 2000 and Spring 2001 semesters. The abbreviated version contains 2 of the 10 scenarios found in the original version. Unlike Pryor and DeSouza’s (1 999, as cited in Pryor & Meyers, 2000) abbreviated version, however, the abbreviated version used in the present study incorporated the female version of the LSH used by Perry et al. (1998) in order to measure men’s and women’s propensity to sexually harass individuals of the opposite sex. Consistent with the instructions in both versions of the LSH, participants were told to imagine themselves as the main character in two different scenarios that involved interactions between males and females. Participants then rated the likelihood that they would perform each of two different described behaviors, assuming that there would be no negative consequences for their action. For example, one scenario is as follows:

Imagine that you are a college student at a large state university. You are an advanced student who just transferred from another university in a different part of the country. One night at a bar you meet an attractive female (male) student named Rhonda (Roger). Rhonda (Roger) laments to you that she (he) is failing a course in Literature. She (he) tells you that she (he) has a paper due next week and fears that she (he) will fail since she (he) has not begun

7We also included a manipulation of evidence admissibility. Specifically, half of the participants received a piece of evidence that favored the plaintiff and that was deemed either admissible or inad- missible. Preliminary statistical analyses revealed that this manipulation failed to have a reliable influence on the results. Consequently, we collapsed across this variable in all reported analyses.

754 ISBELL ET AL.

to write it. You remark that you wrote a paper last year for a similar assignment at your former university. Your paper was given the highest grade (A+). She (he) asks you if you will let her (him) use your paper in her (his) course. She (he) wants to just retype it and put her (his) name on it. How likely are you to do the following things in this situation?

After reading this scenario, participants were asked: (a) “Would you let Rhonda (Roger) use your paper?”; and (b) “Assuming that you would not get caught, would you let Rhonda (Roger) use your paper in exchange for sexual favors?” Participants reported their responses to these two questions on a 5-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all likely) to 4 (very likely). Only responses to the second question are of direct interest and are used to compute individuals’ LSH scores (Pryor, 1987).

Reliability and validity of the abbreviated LSH scale. Pryor and DeSouza (1999, as cited in Pryor & Meyers, 2000) demonstrated that the abbreviated LSH scale has high reliability (a = .78). We found comparable reliability (a = .75) in our prescreen sample. To further establish the reliability and validity of the abbreviated version of the LSH scale used in our main study, we administered the abbreviated and full versions of the scale to a sample of 267 college students (71 male, 196 female) who did not take part in the main study. All participants completed the same abbreviated scale that was described earlier. In addition, male participants completed the traditional LSH measure developed by Pryor (1987), and female participants completed the female version developed by Perry et al. (1998). Both scales had comparable reliability (men, a = .69; women, a = .70). Importantly, the correlations between the abbreviated version and the full versions were highly significant for both men (r = .82,p < .OOl) and women (r = .77, p < .001). This demonstrates that the abbreviated version of the scale taps the same underlying construct as the full versions.

Categorization of participants into LSH groups. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Perry et al., 1998; Pryor, 1987; Pryor & Stoller, 1994), participants were selected for the high and low LSH groups based on the average of their responses to the second question from each of the two scenarios. As discussed previously, Perry et al. found gender differences in LSH such that men score higher than do women; and women’s scores cluster in the lower half of the LSH scale, while men’s scores are found to be more dispersed throughout the scale range. Thus, we also expect to find these differences.

In an examination of the LSH scores of all participants who completed the prescreen questionnaire, we found that men scored significantly higher than did women (1.13 vs. 0.26), F( 1,2255) = 5 2 9 . 1 5 , ~ < .001. Also, consistent with Perry et al. (1 998), we found the distribution of scores to be somewhat more skewed to the left for women than for men: 78.1% of the women in our sample indicated


that they are not at all likely to engage in sexually harassing behavior, whereas only 36.7% of the men responded similarly.

Researchers (e.g., Perry et al., 1998; Pryor, 1987; Pryor et al., 1995) examining individual differences in LSH define high LSH as those scoring in the upper quartile of LSH scores. Given the different mean scores of the men and women in our sample, we decided to use the midpoint of the LSH scale as the cutoff for both men and women, and then made every effort possible to recruit participants who scored in the extreme ends of their LSH group.8

We selected the midpoint of the scale as the cutoff for defining LSH groups for two reasons. First, consistent with Pryor’s (1987) original research in which he identified men scoring in the upper quartile as high in LSH, we found that 24.4% of the men who participated in the prescreen scored at or above 2.00 (the midpoint) on the scale. Thus, using the midpoint of the scale to divide our sample is consistent with Pryor’s definition of high LSH in men. Second, categorizing women as high in LSH if they scored in the upper quartile of female respondents is unlikely to reveal a propensity to harass that is similar to men who scored in the same quartile. In fact, the upper quartile in our sample of women includes all women who scored higher than 0 (the lowest possible score) on the LSH questionnaire. According to Perry et al. ( 1 998), categorizing all women in the upper quartile as high in LSH is questionable. Thus, we also used the midpoint of the LSH scale as the cutoff for women. In our sample, 24.4% of the men scored at or above the midpoint on the scale, whereas 3.4% of the women did. As Perry et al. noted, there are numerous reasons for why women are less likely to harass than men, and, thus, it is not at all surprising that so few women scored at or above the midpoint.

Recruitment of participants from the prescreen. Men and women were selected from lists of individuals scoring high and low on the LSH scale, and an attempt was made to recruit as many participants as possible who scored at the extreme end of their group. Participants were telephoned and invited to come to the laboratory to complete a study concerning “law and human behavior,” which would “entail reading some court case information and making judgments.” Individuals were never informed of the connection between the prescreen questionnaire and the main study. Participants included 56 men and 55 women who scored low in LSH and 25 men and 26 women who scored high in LSH.9

*For this reason, we treat LSH as a dichotomous variable in the main study, as is frequently done in LSH research (e.g., Bargh, Raymond, Pryor, & Strack, 1995; Pryor, 1987; Rudman & Borgida, 1995).

9The difference in the number of participants who completed the study in the high and low LSH groups is a result of the smaller number of potential participants who scored high on the LSH scale. Of the 2,257 respondents who completed the prescreen, only 229 scored high (176 male, 53 females), and the remainder scored low. Given this, it was difficult to recruit equivalent numbers of participants for each LSH group. To account for the unequal cell sizes, we used an unweighted means approach in the analyses we report.

756 ISBELL ET AL.

Consistent with prior research (Perry et al., 1998) and with our data obtained in the prescreen sample, the sample of males recruited for the main study scored higher than did the females on the LSH scale (1.82 vs. 1.49), F( 1, 158) = 8.09, p < .O 1, and this was true regardless of whether participants were in the high LSH group (2.98 vs. 2.62 for males and females, respectively) or the low LSH group (0.66 vs. 0.35 for males and females, respectively). Of course, the means are higher in this sample than in the larger prescreen sample because high LSH participants were oversampled for inclusion in the main study.

Procedure

After arriving at the experimental laboratory and being greeted by an experimenter, participants were seated in individual rooms for privacy and were given an informed-consent form describing what they would be asked to do during the session. The form stated, “We are interested in individuals’ perceptions of participants in a legal case. To study this, you will be asked to read over a summary of a court case and make some judgments about the case.”

After reading through the remainder of the informed-consent form, participants were given the case information to read. They were instructed to read through the case information at their own pace and to notify the experimenter when they were done. The case information was presented to participants on 12 separate pages in a binder, with each page containing different aspects of the trial (e.g., opening statements, witness testimonies, final statements).

Case Summary

In half of the cases, the victim was identified as a female and the harassers were identified as two males. In the other half of the cases, the victim was identified as a male and the harassers were identified as two females. The case summa- ries only differed with respect to the genders of the plaintiff, the defendants, one witness for the defense, and the pronouns used to refer to these parties.10 The case was designed so that all instances of harassment were gender-neutral and could have occurred with a male or a female victim to ensure that gender transla- tion between versions was credible. The case is fictional and was created specifically for use in this experiment. However, it was crafted after careful analysis of numerous actual federal court cases that featured a single plaintiff complaining of sexual harassment based on a hostile work environment. The case materials

‘OAs discussed in Footnote 4, an additional manipulation of evidence admissibility was included in this study and was not found to influence the results reliably. Thus, another difference between the cases is whether or not a piece of offensive e-mail evidence suggesting sexual acts that one of the defendants wanted to do with the plaintiff was ruled admissible.


developed for this study are considerably longer (over 2,000 words) than many others (Gutek et al., 1999) and exposed participants to both the plaintiff’s and the defendants’ side of the story.

The case summary describes an employee of the Systems Analysis Depart- ment of the Dalton Corporation, who claimed to have been sexually harassed by two coworkers of the opposite sex. Although numerous researchers (e.g., Pryor, 1987; Pryor et al., 1993; Pryor & Stoller, 1994) have contended that power differences between individuals play a large role in sexual harassment, we did not manipulate the formal power that the victim and harassers possessed for two reasons. First, simultaneously manipulating both the formal power (e.g., supervisor vs. subordinate) and the genders of the victim and perpetrators introduces unavoidable confounds that prevent a clear interpretation of the results. Second, as Firestone and Harris (2003) noted, survey research employing “larger representative samples indicate that coworkers were more often responsible for harassment than were supervisors” (p. 45). These authors further noted, “While coworkers and subordinates may lack authority from organizational legitimacy, they may have individual power based on personality, or from controlling and manipulating critical information” (p. 45). In the current study, all of the cases involved two individuals of one gender harassing one individual of the opposite gender. Thus, the fact that the victim was always outnumbered added to the power wielded by the harassers.

The case summary contains ostensibly real excerpts from the actual court transcript. The plaintiff (Tucker) complained of disturbing remarks made by the defendants (Mason and Doyle) about the plaintiff‘s body and sex, as well as an instance in which the plaintiffs buttock was grabbed. For example, the plaintiff testified:

On any given day, there would be comments, comments about my clothing or my body, like how it looked like I had been working out or things like, “If I told you that you have a nice body, would you hold it against me?” They would ask me about my sex life and talk about how it could be much better with one of them. I mean, it was almost like we were in a bar or something instead of the office.

The defendants alleged that their department is very relaxed, and sexual joking and discussions do sometimes occur. For example, a summary of one defendant’s (Mason’s) testimony was stated as follows:

He/She described how everyone is so comfortable with each other that they don’t feel the need to uphold the usual pleasantries in their daily conversations. He/She admitted that their conversations did turn to sex and issues of a sexual nature at times, but it was not

758 ISBELL ET AL.

offensive to anyone involved in the conversation. MdMs. Mason stated that he/she believed Ms./Mr Tucker was too sensitive.

The following excerpt from the defendant’s (Mason’s) testimony provides an example of the plaintiff‘s alleged sensitivity:

Like this one time, I told Ms./Mz Tucker that herlhis suit really fit well and made it look like she/he had been working out. I meant it as a compliment, but I guess she/he took it to mean that I was looking at her/his body. It seems ridiculous that I can’t even compliment a person on her/his outfit without it being interpreted as something else.

The defendants hrther alleged that the plaintiff initially reciprocated the joking behavior and participated in the sexual conversations before complaining to the human resources manager, but only complained out of spite for the defendants because they did not work well together. In testimony by a witness for the defense (who was consistently the same gender as the victim), the following was revealed:

People here joke around all the time, especially about sex and things of a sexual nature. I’ve worked here for almost five years now and really enjoy the relaxed atmosphere. My job is pretty stressful and we all de-stress by joking around and stuff.

The defense attorney then asked the witness, “Did this behavior ever bother you or make you feel uncomfortable?” and the witness replied, “Not at all. I never took any of it seriously; it was just in fun. We all did it.” Finally, the attorney asked, “Was the atmosphere of the office like this when the plaintiff first began working there a little over two years ago?” and the witness stated, “Yes, and she/he took part in it for a long time, too, just like the rest of us. I’d say her/ his behavior was fairly reciprocal for the first year and a half or so of her/his time at Dalton.”

The last part of the case summary included a brief set of instructions that the judge provided to the jury in the case. In these instructions, the judge indicated that the reasonable-person standard should be used when making judgments in the case.

Dependent Measures

After reading through the case information, participants completed a series of dependent measures described in this section and adopted from research conducted by Wiener and his colleagues (Wiener et al., 1997; Wiener & Hurt, 2000).


Extent to which defendants ’ behavior constitutes sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is legally defined as unwelcome sexual conduct that is sufficiently severe or pervasive so as to unreasonably interfere with one’s work performance; or to create an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. In order to assess the extent to which participants interpreted the defendants’ behavior as sexual harassment, they were asked to respond to the following questions: (a) “How unwelcome do you think the defendants’ behavior was?”; (b) “How severe do you think the defendants’ behavior was?”; and (c) “How pervasive do you think the defendants’ behavior was?”

Responses to the questions were recorded on 1 1 -point scales ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (extremely), Participants’ responses to the questions were highly related (Cronbach’s a = .78). Given this, a composite score was created by averaging each participant’s responses to the three questions.

Additional dependent measures. Participants were also asked to assess the likelihood that (a) the sexual conduct affected the victim’s work performance in a negative manner; (b) the conduct affected the victim’s psychological well-being in a negative manner; and (c) the plaintiff was subjected to hostile work environment sexual harassment. In addition, participants were asked to evaluate the iike- lihood that, had they been treated like the plaintiff, they would consider the treatment to be hostile work environment sexual harassment. Responses to all of these questions were recorded on 11 -point scales ranging from 0 (not at all likely) to 10 (extremely likely).

Participants were also asked to identify the legal standard that was described in the case summary as the standard that should be employed when judging sexual harassment. Participants were given three options: (a) the reasonable-woman standard; (b) the reasonable-man standard; and (c) the reasonable-person standard (the correct response). Finally, participants were asked to indicate the extent to which they used this legal standard in making their judgments.” Participants recorded their responses on an ll-point scale ranging from 0 (not at all) to 10 (a lot). Taken together, these questions were included to assess whether participants were aware of the standard that they were supposed to use and the extent to which they actually used this standard in making their judgments.

Results

The five dependent variables designed to tap participants’ assessment of sexual harassment in the case that they read were all highly correlated (Table 1). For this reason, we first conducted a MANOVA on these variables. Participants’ judgments were analyzed as a function of case (female vs. male victim), participant

“Unlike the other dependent measures discussed, this measure was not included in work by Wiener and his colleagues (Wiener & Hurt, 2000; Wiener et al., 1997).

760 ISBELL ET AL.

Table 1

Correlations Among Dependent Variables

2 3 4 5

1. Legal definition .62*** .61*** .54*** .71*** 2. Personal judgment - .57*** .52*** .67***

4. Negative well-being - .56*** 5. Victim

3. Negative work - .71*** .71***

-

***p < ,001.

Table 2

MANOVA Results

Source Multivariate F Partial q 2

Case LSH Gender Case x LSH Case x Gender LSH x Gender Case x LSH x Gender

2.51* .078 2.06t .065 5.62*** .I60 0.75 .035 5.68*** .160 0.70 .023 3.90** .117

Note. LSH = likelihood to sexually harass. t p < .lo. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

gender (male vs. female), and LSH (high vs. low). The results of this analysis are presented in Table 2.

Main Effects of Case, Gendel; and LSH on Sexual Harassment Judgments

The MANOVA yielded a statistically significant main effect of case, F(5, 148) = 2 . 5 1 , ~ < .05. Overall, participants judged the case involving the male victim as more likely to be sexual harassment and to have a negative impact on the plaintiff than the case involving the female victim. Univariate ANOVAs conducted on each of the dependent variables reveal that this effect was only

Tabl

e 3

Mea

n Sc

ores

and

F V

alue

s for

the

Mai

n Ef

fect

s for

Cas

e, G

ende

l; an

d LS

H F

rom

the

Uni

vari

ate A

NO

VAs

Cas

e G

ende

r LS

H

Var

iabl

e Ty

pica

l A

typi

cal

F M

ale

Fem

ale

F Lo

w

Hig

h F

Lega

l def

initi

on

6.13

6.

39

0.71

5.

94

6.57

4.

26*

6.43

6.

09

1.24

Pers

onal

judg

men

t 5.

20

5.88

1.

74

4.3

1 6.

76

22.8

8***

6.

02

5.05

3.

661-

Neg

ativ

e w

ork

6.69

6.

96

0.5 1

6.

48

7.17

3.

311-

7.

01

6.64

0.

98

Neg

ativ

e w

ell-b

eing

6.

04

7.09

8.

17**

6.

49

6.64

0.

19

6.87

6.

25

2.87

7

Vic

tim

6.82

7.

11

0.55

6.

56

7.38

4.

49*

6.96

6.

97

0.00

Not

e. L

SH =

like

lihoo

d to

sex

ually

har

ass.

The n

for a

ll bu

t the

lega

l def

initi

on a

naly

sis

is 1

62. T

wo

parti

cipa

nts

wer

e dr

oppe

d fr

om th

is

(I, rn

C

anal

ysis

bec

ause

of m

issi

ng d

ata.

tp

< .l

o. *

p <

.05.

**p

< .0

1. *

**p <

.001

. F I

>

762 ISBELL ET AL.

statistically significant for judgments of negative psychological well-being (Table 3).

The MANOVA also revealed a significant main effect of gender, F(5, 148) =

5.62, p < .001. This effect reveals that female participants were more likely than male participants to perceive the defendants’ behaviors as sexual harassment and to believe that these behaviors negatively affected the plaintiff. The univariate tests shown in Table 3 reveal that the gender main effect was significant for judgments of the extent to which the defendants’ behaviors fit the legal definition of sexual harassment, the extent to which participants would consider the behavior to be sexual harassment if they experienced the same treatment, and the likelihood that the plaintiff was a victim of hostile work environment sexual harassment. A marginally significant effect also emerged for judgments of the extent to which the behaviors were likely to have affected the plaintiff‘s work performance in a negative manner.

A marginally significant main effect of LSH also emerged in the MANOVA (Table 2). This effect demonstrates that individuals low in LSH, relative to those high in LSH, were more likely to perceive the defendants’ behaviors to be sexually harassing and to have had a negative impact on the plaintiff, F(5, 148) = 2.06, p < .08. As shown in Table 3, the univariate tests reveal that this relationship was strongest for participants’ judgments of the extent to which they would consider the defendants’ behaviors to be sexual harassment if they had experienced the same treatment as the plaintiff, and the extent to which the defendants’ behaviors negatively influenced the plaintiffs psychological well-being.

Interactive Effects of Case, Gender; and LSH on Sexual Harassment Judgments

In addition to the main effects, the MANOVA revealed a significant two-way interaction between case and gender, F(5, 148) = 5.68, p < .001. However, univariate tests reveal that this effect was only evident on participants’ judgments of the extent to which they would consider the plaintiff the victim of sexual harassment if they had been treated like the plaintiff, F(1, 154) = 8.28, p = .005. Importantly, this two-way interaction was qualified by the predicted higher-order interaction involving participants’ LSH scores. This predicted three-way interaction emerged both in the MANOVA, F(5, 148) = 3.90, p < .01, and in numerous univariate tests described in this section. Table 4 displays the means for each dependent variable for which the three-way interaction is significant.

Efects on legal definition judgments. A univariate test of participants’ judgments of the extent to which the defendants’ behaviors fit the legal definition of sexual harassment reveals a significant interaction between case, gender, and LSH, F( 1, 152) = 4.49, p < .05. As shown in Table 4, under conditions in which the victim was the same gender as the participant, LSH did not influence participants’ judgments (6.12 vs. 6.43), F( 1, 152) < 1 .OO, p < .40, and this pattern of


Table 4

Mean Scores for the Signrficant Three- Way Interactions Between Case, LSH, and Gender From the Univariate ANOVAs

Male harassers/ Female harassers/ female victim male victim

Males Low LSH

Legal definition Personal judgment Negative work


High LSH

Females Low LSH



High LSH

6.10 (27) 4.56 (27) 6.94 (27)

5.51 (13) 1.92 (13) 5.62 (13)

6.37 (26) 6.70 (27) 6.96 (27)

6.54 (13) 7.62 (13) 7.23 (13)

5.86 (29) 5.28 (29) 6.28 (29)

6.31 (12) 5.50 (12) 7.08 (12)

7.38 (28) 7.57 (28) 7.86 (28)

6.00 (12) 5.15 (13) 6.62 ( 1 3)

Note. LSH = likelihood to sexually harass. Numbers in parentheses indicate cell sizes.

results was similar for women exposed to the case involving the female victim (6.54 vs. 6.37 for participants high and low in LSH, respectively; F < I ) and for men exposed to the case involving the male victim (6.31 vs. 5.86 for participants high and low in LSH, respectively; F < 1).

In contrast, under conditions in which the victim was the opposite gender of the participant, LSH interacted with case in the predicted manner. Under these conditions, participants high in LSH judged the behavior of the defendants as less fitting of the definition of sexual harassment than those low in LSH (5.76 vs. 6.74), F(1, 152) = 5 . 2 3 , ~ < .05. Although this pattern of results was similar for males exposed to the case involving the female victim (5.51 vs. 6.10 for

764 ISBELL ET AL.

participants high and low in LSH, respectively), F( 1, 152) < 1 .OO, p < .35, and for females exposed to the case involving the male victim (6.00 vs. 7.38 for participants high and low in LSH, respectively), F( 1, 152) = 5.05, p < .05, it reached conventional levels of statistical significance only for female participants.

Personal judgments of sexual harassment. As shown in Table 4, a three-way interaction emerged on participants’ judgments of the extent to which they would consider the plaintiff the victim of harassment had they been treated like the plaintiff, F( 1, 154) = 9.13, p < .01. Specifically, participants’ level of LSH did not influence their perceptions of sexual harassment when the victim was the same gender as themselves (6.56 vs. 5.99 for high and low LSH participants, respectively), F( 1, 154) < 1 .OO, p > .40; and the pattern of results was similar for men exposed to the case involving the male victim (5.50 vs. 5.28 for high and low LSH, respectively; F < 1) and for women exposed to the case involving the female victim (7.62 vs. 6.70 for high and low LSH, respectively; F < 1). How- ever, when the victim was the opposite gender of the participant, those high in LSH perceived less sexual harassment than did those low in LSH (3.54 vs. 6.07 for high and low LSH participants, respectively), F( 1, 154) = 12.3 1, p = .OO 1, and this pattern of results was similar and statistically significant for men exposed to the case involving the female victim (1.92 vs. 4.56 for high and low LSH, respectively), F( 1, 154) = 6.65, p = .01, and for women exposed to the case involving the male victim (5.1 5 vs. 7.57 for high and low LSH, respectively), F( 1, 154) =

5.68, p < .05. Negative effect on work performance. Participants’ judgments of the extent to

which the defendants’ behaviors negatively affected the plaintiff‘s work performance were contingent on the case that they read, their gender, and their LSH score, F( 1, 154) = 5.83, p < .05. As shown in Table 4, participants’ level of LSH did not influence their perceptions of sexual harassment when the victim was the same gender as themselves (7.16 vs. 6.62 for high and low LSH participants, respectively), F(1, 154) = 1.00, p > .30. This pattern of results was similar for men exposed to the case involving the male victim (7.08 vs. 6.28 for high and low LSH participants, respectively), F( 1, 154) = 1.11, p < .30; and for women exposed to the case involving the female victim (7.23 vs. 6.96 for high and low LSH participants, respectively), F < 1. However, when the victim was the opposite gender of the participant, those high in LSH perceived fewer negative effects on the plaintiff‘s work performance than did those low in LSH (6.12 vs. 7.40 for those high and low in LSH, respectively), F( 1, 154) = 5.86, p < .05. This pattern of results was similar for men exposed to the case involving the female victim (5.62 vs. 6.94 for high and low LSH participants, respectively), F(1, 1 54) = 3.1 1, p = .08; and for women exposed to the case involving the male victim (6.62 vs. 7.86 for high and low LSH participants, respectively), F( 1, 154) =

2.75, p < . lo.


Supplementary Analyses

It is possible that the reported effects are attributable to differences in the legal standard that participants applied when faced with a male or female sexual harassment victim. To examine this possibility, an analysis of participants’ reports of the legal standard that they were told to use was conducted. Of the 161 participants who identified the standard, 154 (95.7%) did so correctly.12 Impor- tantly, an analysis of the extent to which participants used the legal standard in making their judgments reveals that all participants-regardless of their gender, level of LSH, and the case that they received-used the legal standard to the same extent (all p > .20). Taken together, these results rule out the possibility that the differences in the judgments reported earlier are the result of participants either adopting different legal standards when presented with different cases or differentially relying on the assigned standard.

Discussion

Summary and Interpretation

Previous research (e.g., Baird et al., 1995; Baker et al., 1990; Gutek & O’Connor, 1995; Jones & Remland, 1992; Loredo et al., 1995; Marks & Nelson, 1993; Mazer & Percival, 1989; Popovich et al., 1992) has demonstrated that men and women differ in their perception of sexual harassment. Consistent with this research, our results demonstrate that women were more likely than men to perceive social sexual behaviors to be sexually harassing. However, our results extend prior work by suggesting that an individual’s propensity to engage in sexual harassment is a strong and necessary predictor of how individuals will view sexual harassment when the victim’s gender is different from their own. Individ- uals high and low in LSH may apply a different standard for defining sexual harassment, depending on whether the victim is of their same or opposite gender, even though the behavior in question is the same.

In our study, we hypothesized that in cases in which the participant’s gender was the same as the victim’s, participants would identify with the victim, and individual differences in LSH would not influence the results. Our results are consistent with this expectation in both the sexual harassment case involving the

‘2Three participants (1.9%) who received the atypical case (male victim of female harassment) incorrectly identified the standard as the reasonable-man standard, whereas 2 (1.2%) identified it as the reasonable-woman standard. One participant (0.6%) who received the typical case (female victim of male harassment) identified the standard as the reasonable-man standard, whereas 1 (0.6%) identified it as the reasonable-woman standard. Consistent with prior research (e.g., Wiener & Hurt, 2000), as a result of the small number of inaccuracies in identifying the standard, we did not eliminate these participants from the main analyses reported earlier.

766 ISBELL ET AL.

female victim and the case involving the male victim. We obtained a similar pattern of results for three dependent variables, including judgments of (a) the extent to which the defendants’ behavior fit the legal definition of sexual harassment; (b) the extent to which participants would perceive the behavior to be sexual harassment if they were in the plaintiffs position; and (c) the likelihood that the defendants’ behavior negatively affected the victim’s work performance.

In cases in which participants were the opposite gender of the harassers, we hypothesized that individual differences in LSH would influence their judgments. Specifically, we expected that those high in LSH would have a higher threshold for identifying behaviors as sexually harassing and, consequently, would perceive the behaviors to be less harassing than those low in LSH. Over- all, we found evidence for this hypothesis. When examining the extent to which the defendants’ behaviors fit the legal definition of sexual harassment, we found a significant difference for women who were exposed to the case involving the male victim and a nonsignificant difference in the predicted direction for men exposed to the case involving the female victim. When examining the extent to which participants would perceive the behavior to be sexual harassment if they were in the plaintiffs position, we found a significant effect for both men and women, as predicted. A similar pattern of data emerged when examining participants’ judgments of the likelihood that the defendants’ behavior negatively affected the victim’s work performance, although the differences were only marginally significant when examining men and women separately.

In addition to providing new evidence that individual differences in LSH moderate the effects of gender on judgments of typical and atypical hostile work environment sexual harassment cases, the current research also provides valuable information about the utility of the LSH construct. Although the men’s version of the LSH has been used extensively in research (e.g., Pryor, 1987; Pryor et al., 1993, 1995; Pryor & Meyers, 2000; Pryor & Stoller, 1994; Rudman & Borgida, 1995), the women’s version is relatively new and has been used rarely (e.g., Perry et al., 1998). Thus, the current research not only contributes to our knowledge of perceptions of sexual harassment, but also furthers our understanding of the role of the LSH construct in men’s and women’s perceptions. In addition, our results demonstrate that individual differences in LSH can be measured reliably using an abbreviated version of the LSH scale that is fast and easy to administer.

Limitations and Implications of the Current Research

The current research explored the perceptions of undergraduate males and females. Future research is needed to explore the effects of gender and propensity to sexually harass on the decision-making processes of other populations, particularly those who are more representative of individuals who are likely to make decisions in sexual harassment cases. Our student sample was predominantly


young, educated, and heterosexual. Some research (Hendrix et al., 1998) has found that full-time employees perceive events as more sexually harassing than do full-time students. Research (Gutek, 1995) also has found that older individuals tend to have a broader definition of sexual harassment than do younger individuals. In addition to considering these factors when generalizing our results to other samples, it is important to consider that our study was not designed to create a real legal situation in which individuals might actually make sexual harassment judgments (e.g., at work in response to a sexual harassment com- plaint, in a jury deliberation room).

Finally, although our stimulus materials are considerably more detailed than those used by many researchers, the materials still provided participants with a relatively impoverished sense of the events in the case compared to what they would obtain if they were exposed to a full sexual harassment case. Thus, this research needs to be replicated in more naturalistic contexts using more realistic stimulus materials and more representative samples.

Despite the limitations of our study, the results may have important implications for managers or employees who are responsible for enforcing sexual harassment policies in their own organizations. Individuals responsible for enforcing such policies and for handling sexual harassment complaints must be very familiar with sexual harassment laws in order to enforce them and reduce the likelihood of corporate liability. Knowledge of the judgmental biases that can exist in applying these laws is essential for employers to consider when selecting personnel to investigate and evaluate sexual harassment complaints. The current research suggests that in cases in which there is no match between a perceiver’s (e.g., a manager) and a victim’s gender, a person’s propensity to sexually harass might be a strong indicator of how a potential manager may perceive a sexual harassment case. In such cases, a manager’s perceptions might be biased and lead to misjudgments in evaluating and handling the cases. In order to protect themselves from corporate liability, employers are advised to select low LSH personnel to handle and investigate sexual harassment claims. Employers may administer the LSH to employees and potential employees and use it as a personnel selection tool when determining who would be the best person in an organization to handle sexual harassment complaints and investigations.

More generally, our research has implications for sexual harassment training programs that are designed to reduce sexual harassment among employees within an organization. To the extent that employees have a preexisting tendency to harass members of the opposite gender, it will be especially important to sensitize them to the types of behaviors that constitute sexual harassment. The current research suggests that these individuals are less likely than others to perceive social sexual behaviors as harassing when the behaviors are directed at members of the opposite gender. Pryor et al. (1 993) suggested that individuals high in LSH might require more intensive sexual harassment training than those low in LSH.

768 ISBELL ET AL.

Perry, Kulik, et al. (1998) found that following exposure to a sexual harassment training video, high LSH men (compared to high LSH men exposed to an unrelated video) were more knowledgeable about sexual harassment and less likely to engage in unsolicited sexual touching of a female confederate in a laboratory experiment. Unfortunately, however, the training video did not change high LSH men’s long-term attitudes about sexual harassment (as measured by the LSH). When making judgments as to the appropriateness and nature of one’s social sexual behavior, it may be especially helpful to encourage high LSH employees to imagine that a member of the opposite gender is treating them in the same manner.

Future Directions

Numerous factors have been shown to influence individuals’ perceptions of sexual harassment, and the results reported in the literature often have been inconsistent. Future research is needed to better understand what factors influence individuals’ perceptions of sexual harassment and when they have an influence. Perhaps more importantly, research is needed to develop ways to change harassers’ long-term beliefs and perceptions of what constitutes sexual harassment, as well as their immediate and long-term behavior.

Work environments are becoming increasingly more diverse as women and homosexuals are becoming more visible in the workplace. Thus, the often- neglected male victim of female sexual harassment desperately needs to be researched further. In addition, research examining same-gender harassment is becoming increasingly more important. Researchers (Foote & Goodman- Delahunty, 1999; Stockdale, Visio, & Batra, 1999; Waldo, Berdahl, & Fitzgerald, 1998; Wayne et al., 2001) have only begun to examine same-gender harassment.

In their ruling in Oncale v. Sundowner OJ3hoi-e Services, Inc. (1998), the United States Supreme Court recently recognized same-sex harassment as a cate- gory of sexual harassment prohibited by Title VII. As a variety of sexual harassment cases continue to be brought before the courts in greater numbers, it is the job of psychologists to come to a better understanding of the psychological factors that shape individuals’ perceptions of sexual harassment and their behavior.

References

Andrews v. City ofPhiladelphia, 895 F. 2d 1469, 1482 (3d Cir, 1990). Baird, C. L., Bensko, N. L., Bell, P. A., Viney, W., & Woody, W. D. (1995).

Gender influence on perceptions of hostile environment sexual harassment. Psychological Reports, 77, 79-82.

Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Larntz, K. (1990). The influence of individual characteristics and severity of harassing behavior on reactions to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 22, 305-325.


Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., Pryor, J. B., & Strack, F. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power-sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psy-

Bastian, L. D., Lancaster, A. R., & Reyst, H. E. (1996). Department ofDefense 1995 sexual harassment survey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1 996). Sexual harassment of men. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 527-547.

Blakely, G. L., Blakely, E. H., & Moorman, R. H. (1995). The relationship between gender, personal experience, and perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8,263-274.

Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1997). Sexual harassment: An experimental test of sex-role spillover theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21,63-75.

CivilRights Act, § 3(1), 101 (1991). Cleveland, J. N., & Kerst, M. E. (1993). Sexual harassment and perceptions of

power: An under-articulated relationship. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42,

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1 990). Sexual harassment policy guidance (EEOC Notice No. N-9 15-0.50). Washington, DC: U S . Government Printing Office.

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (2001, January 18). Sexual harassment charges: EEOC and FEPAs combined, FY 1992-FY 2000. Retrieved April 27,2001, from http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/harass.html

chology, 68, 768-781.

49-67.

Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991). Furaghev v. City of Boca Raton, 524 U.S. 775 (1998). Federal EEO Advisor. (2001). Male victim may not have initially recognized sex-

ual harassment. Federal EEO Advisor, 4(5). Firestone, J. M., & Harris, R. J. (2003). Perceptions of effectiveness of responses

to sexual harassment in the US military, 1988 and 1995. Work & Organiza- tion, 10,42-64.

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly,

Foote, W. E., & Goodman-Delahunty, J . (1999). Same-sex harassment: Implica- tions of the Oncale decision for forensic evaluation of plaintiffs. Behavioral Sciences and the Law, 17, 123-139.

Goodman-Delahunty, J. (1999). Pragmatic support for the reasonable victim standard in hostile workplace sexual harassment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, andLaw, 5 , 519-555.

Gowan, M. A., & Zimmerman, R. A. (1 996). Impact of ethnicity, gender, and previous experience on juror judgments in sexual harassment cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 596-617.

15,281-294.

770 ISBELL ET AL.

Gutek, B. A. (1995). How subjective is sexual harassment? An examination of rater effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17,447-467.

Gutek, B. A., Cohen, A. G., & Konrad, A. M. (1990). Predicting social sexual behavior at work: A contact hypothesis. Academy of Management Journal,

Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1983). Interpreting social sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30-48.

Gutek, B. A,, & O’Connor, M. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 15 1-166.

Gutek, B. A., O’Connor, M. A., Melancon, R., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., & Done, R. S. (1999). The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multimethod, multistudy examination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 596-629.

33, 560-577.

Harris v, Forklift Systems, Inc., 5 10 U.S. 17 (1 993). Hartnett, J. J., Robinson, D., & Singh, B. (1989). Perceptions of males and

females toward sexual harassment and acquiescence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4,291 -298.

Hay, M. S., & Elig, T. W. (1999). The 1995 Department of Defense Sexual Harassment Survey: Overview and methodology. Military Psychology, 1 I , 233-242.

Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 21 1 (9th Cir. 1982). Hendrix, W. H., Rueb, J. D., & Steel, R. P. (1 998). Sexual harassment and gender

differences. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 13,235-252. Johnson, P. (1976). Women and power: Toward a theory of effectiveness. Journal

of Social Issues, 32, 99- 1 10. Jones, T. S. , & Remland, M. S. (1 992). Sources of variability in perceptions of

and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 121-142. Jones, T. S., Remland, M. S., & Brunner, C. C. (1987). Effects of employment

relationship, response of recipient, and sex of rater on perceptions of sexual harassment. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65, 55-63.

Katz, R. C., Hannon, R., & Whitten, L. (1996). Effects of gender and situation on the perception of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 34, 35-42.

LaRocca, M. A., & Kromrey, J. D. (1999). Perception of sexual harassment in higher education: Impact of gender and attractiveness. Sex Roles, 40,92 1-940.

Loredo, C., Reid, A., & Deaux, K. (1995). Judgments and definitions of sexual harassment by high school students. Sex Roles, 32,29-45.

Magley, V. J., Waldo, C. R., Drasgow, F., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1999). The impact of sexual harassment on military personnel: Is it the same for men and women? Military Psychology, 11,283-302.

Marks, M. A., & Nelson, E. S. (1993). Sexual harassment on campus: Effects of professor gender on perception of sexually harassing behaviors. Sex Roles, 28, 207-2 17.


Mazer, D. B., & Percival, E. F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The relationships among perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of sexual harassment in university students. Sex Roles, 20, 135-147.

Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986). Miller v. Bank ofAmerica, 600 F.2d. 211 (9th Cir. 1979). Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998). Padgitt, S. C., & Padgitt , J. S. (1986). Cognitive structure of sexual harassment:

Implications for university policy. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 34-39.

Perry, E. L., Kulik, C. T., & Schmidtke, J. M. (1998). Individual differences in the effectiveness of sexual harassment awareness training. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 28,698-723.

Perry, E. L., Schmidtke, J. M., & Kulik, C. T. (1998). Propensity to sexually harass: An exploration of gender differences. Sex Roles, 38,443-460.

Popovich, P. M. (1988). Sexual harassment in organizations. Employee Responsi- bilities and Rights Journal, 1,273-282.

Popovich, P. M., Gehlauf, D. N., Jolton, J. A., Everton, W. J., Godinho, R. M., Mastrangelo, P. M., et al. (1996). Physical attractiveness and sexual harassment: Does every picture tell a story or every story tell a picture? Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 520-542.

Popovich, P. M., Gehlauf, D. N., Jolton, J. A., Somers, J. M., & Godinho, R. M. ( I 992). Perceptions of sexual harassment as a function of sex of rater and incident form and consequence. Sex Roles, 27,609-625.

Pryor, J. B. (1985). The lay person’s understanding of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 13,273-286.

Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17,

Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. (1995). A social psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 69-84.

Pryor, J. B., LaVite, C., & Stoller, L. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The persodsituation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42,68-83.

Pryor, J. B., & Meyers, A. B. (2000). Men who sexually harass women, In L. B. Schlesinger (Ed.), Serial offenders: Current thought, recentjindings, unusual syndromes (pp. 207-228). Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press LLC.

Pryor, J. B., & Stoller, L. M. (1994). Sexual cognition processes in men high in the likelihood to sexually harass. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

269-290.

20, 163-169. Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986). Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of university

Rhode, D. L. (1999, July 14). Ambisexual bias. The Recorder, 5. students. Sex Roles, 15,333-358.

772 ISBELL ET AL.

Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 5, 9 14-922.

Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31,493-5 17.

Stockdale, M., Visio, M., & Batra, L. (1999). The sexual harassment of men: Evidence for a broader theory of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5,630-664.

Thomann, D. A., & Wiener, R. L. (1 987). Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles, 17, 573-591.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1 981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). Sexual harassment in the,federal government: An update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1995). Sexual harassment in the federal government: Trends, pi-ogress, continuing challenges. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.

Verespej, M. A. (1995, May). New-age sexual harassment. Zndustry Week, 64-68. Waldo, C. R., Berdahl, J. L., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1998). Are men sexually

harassed? If so, by whom? Law and Human Behavior, 22, 59-79. Wayne, J. H., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, K. M. (2001). Is all sexual harassment

viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 179- 187.

Wiener, R. L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Rauch, S., Seib, H., Warren, L., et al. (2002). Fit and implementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evalu- ations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87,747-764.

Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85,

Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L., Russell, B., Mannen, K., & Gasper, C. (1997). Percep- tions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambiva- lent sexism. Law andHuman Behavior, 21, 71-93.

Wiener, R. L., Watts, B. A., Goldkamp, K. H., & Gasper, C. (1995). Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments: A test of the reasonable woman standard. Law and Human Behavior, 19,263-28 1 .

Williams, C. W., Brown, R. S., Lees-Haley, P. R., & Price, J. R. (1 997). An attri- butional (casual dimensional) analysis of perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25,1169- 1 183.

75-85.

Documents

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