The subjective perception of harassment victims is one of the key criteria when defining what sexual harassment is. In this context, the aim of this paper is to analyse the differences between men and women’s judgments of what behaviours constitute sexual harassment and how they are classified at university. To accomplish this, we administered a 38-item questionnaire to a sample of 1,693 people (1,521 students and 172 members of teaching staff, administration and services) at a Spanish university. The results indicate that there is a distinction associated with both the severity of the behaviours perceived and classified as sexual harassment (more severe and milder) and their content (coercion or sexual blackmail vs. environmental harassment). Within this perception, there is a clear combined effect of the variables of gender and position within the university community such that women, particularly female university staff members, classified more behaviours as mild sexual harassment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BanerjeeA.SharmaB. (2012). Gender differences in perception of workplace sexual harassment among future professionals. Industrial Psychiatry Journal, 20, 21–24. doi:10.4103/0972-6748.98410
2.
BatistaJ. M.SuredaJ. (1987). Análisis de correspondencias y técnicas de clasificación: su interés para la investigación en las ciencias sociales y del comportamiento. Infancia y Aprendizaje, 10, 171–186. doi:10.1080/02103702.1987.10822184
3.
BerdahlJ. L.MooreC. (2006). Workplace harassment: Double jeopardy for minority women. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 426–436. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426 doi:10.1037/0021-9010.91.2.426
4.
BlumenthalJ. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 33–57. doi:10.1023/A:1025724721559 doi:10.1023/A:1025724721559
5.
BoschE. (1998). Estudio comparativo en población universitaria de conductas susceptibles de ser tipificadas como de acoso sexual. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Universidad de las Islas Baleares, España.
6.
BoschE.FerrerV. A.NavarroC.FerreiroV.RamisM. C.EscarrerC.BlahopouloI. (2012). El acoso sexual en el ámbito universitario: Elementos para mejorar la implementación de medidas de prevención, detección e intervención. Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer.
7.
Bowes-SperryL.O’Leary-KellyA. M. (2005). To act or not to act: The dilemma faced by sexual harassment observers. Academy of Management Review, 30, 288–306. doi:10.5465/AMR.2005.16387886
8.
BursikK.GefterJ. (2011). Still stable after all these years: Perceptions of sexual harassment in academic contexts. The Journal of Social Psychology, 151, 331–349. doi:10.1080/00224541003628081
9.
CalleM.GonzálezC.NúñezJ. A. (1988). Discriminación y acoso sexual a la mujer en el trabajo. Madrid: Fundación Largo Caballero.
10.
CochranC. C.FrazierP. A.OlsonA. M. (1997). Predictors of responses to unwanted sexual attention. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 21, 207–226. doi:10.1111/j.1471-6402.1997.tb00109.x
DeSouzaE. R.SolbergJ.ElderC. (2007). A cross-cultural perspective on judgments of woman-to-woman sexual harassment: Does sexual orientation matter?Sex Roles, 56, 457–471. doi:10.1007/s11199-007-9184-6
13.
ElyR.PadavicI. (2007). A feminist analysis of organizational research on sex differences.Academy of Management Review, 32, 1121–1143. doi:10.5465/AMR.2007.26585842
14.
EscartínJ.RodríguezÁ.PorrúaC.MartínJ. (2008). Estudio y análisis sobre cómo perciben el mobbing los trabajadores.Revista de Psicología Social, 23, 203–211. doi:10.1174/021347408784135832
15.
FitzgeraldL. F.GelfandM. J.DrasgowF. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances.Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425–445. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1704_2
16.
FitzgeraldL. F.SwanS.MagleyV. (1997). But was it really sexual harassment? Legal, behavioral and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In O’DonohueW. (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Theory, research and treatment (pp. 5–28). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
17.
FoulisD.McCabeM. P. (1997). Sexual harassment: Factors affecting attitudes and perceptions. Sex Roles, 37, 773–798. doi:10.1007/BF02936339 doi:10.1007/BF02936339
18.
FrazierP. A.CochranC. C.OlsonA. M. (1995). Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21–37. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.1995.tb01306.x
19.
GutekB. A. (1995). How subjective is sexual harassment? An examination of rater effects. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 447–467. doi:10.1207/s15324834basp1704_3
20.
Instituto de la Mujer. (2006). El acoso sexual a las mujeres en el ámbito laboral. Resumen de resultados. (Ref. 724/04). Madrid: Instituto de la Mujer. INMARK.
21.
KayuniH. M. (2009). The challenge of studying sexual harassment in higher education: An experience from the University of Malawi’s Chancellor College. Journal of International Women’s Studies, 11, 83–99.
22.
KelleyM. L.ParsonsB. (2000). Sexual harassment in the 1990s: A university-wide survey of female faculty, administrators, staff, and students. The Journal of Higher Education, 71, 548–568. doi:10.2307/2649259
23.
LewisD. (2001). Perceptions of bullying in organisations. International Journal of Management and Decision Making, 2, 48–64. doi:10.1504/IJMDM.2001.001221
24.
LizasoainL.JoaristiL. (2012). Las nuevas tecnologías y la investigación educativa. El análisis de datos de variables categóricas. Revista Española de Pedagogía, 251, 111–130.
25.
LutharH. K.TataJ.KwesigaE. (2009). A model for predicting outcomes of sexual harassment complaints by race and gender. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 21, 21–35. doi:10.1007/s10672-008-9072–4
26.
NielsenM. B.BjørkeloB.NotelaersG.EinarsenS. (2010). Sexual harassment: Prevalence, outcomes and gender differences assessed by three different estimation methods. Journal of Aggression, Maltreatment & Trauma, 19, 252–274. doi:10.1080/10926771003705056
27.
O’ConnorM.GutekB. A.StockdaleM.GeerT. M.MelançonR. (2004). Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law and Human Behavior: Psychology, Law and the Workplace, 28, 69–95. doi:10.1023/B:LAHU.0000015004.39462.6e
28.
O’Leary-KellyA. M.Bowes-SperryL.BatesC. A.LeanE. R. (2009). Sexual harassment at work: A decade (Plus) of progress. Journal of Management, 35, 503–536. doi:10.1177/0149206308330555
29.
OhseD. M.StockdaleM. S. (2008). Age comparisons in workplace sexual harassment perceptions. Sex Roles, 59, 240–253. doi:10.1007/s11199-008-9438–y
Organización Mundial de la Salud (OMS). (2003). Delitos sexuales. In OMS, Informe Mundial sobre la violencia y la salud (pp. 160–197). Washington, DC: Organización Panamericana para la Salud. Oficina Regional para las Américas de la Organización Mundial de la Salud.
32.
PérezC. (2005). Métodos estadísticos avanzados con SPSS. Madrid: Thomson.
33.
PérezR. (2012). Las limitaciones en la cuantificación del acoso sexual laboral en España.Atenea Digital, 12, 199–219.
34.
PérezR.RodríguezC. (2013). Un análisis del concepto de acoso sexual laboral: Reflexiones y orientaciones para la investigación y la intervención social. Cuadernos de Relaciones Laborales, 31, 195–219. doi:10.5209/rev_CRLA.2013.v31.n1.41647
35.
PinaA.GannonT. A.SaundersB. (2009). An overview of the literature on sexual harassment: Perpetrator, theory, and treatment issues. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 14, 126–138. doi:10.1016/j.avb.2009.01.002
36.
RospendaK. M.RichmanJ. A.NawynS. J. (1998). Doing power: The confluence of gender, race, and class in contrapower sexual harassment. Gender and Society, 12, 40–60. doi:10.1177/089124398012001003
37.
RotundoM.NguyenD.SackettP. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922. doi:10.1037/0021-9010.86.5.914
