This study was designed as a first step to explore sexual harassment in the electronic domain. One hundred six students read 10 e-mail messages ranging from jokes to spam to a sexual proposition from a stranger and rated them on an offensiveness evaluative scale. Participants also completed social desirability and attitudes toward sexual harassment scales. Messages with sexual content were generally perceived less favourably than e-mail without such content. Gender was critical to the experience of receiving many types of e-mail messages. When the e-mail content was perceived to be offensive, women found it more offensive than did men. Marked gender differences emerged in response to the sexual proposition, which women perceived to be extremely offensive while men rated it as somewhat enjoyable. Tolerance of sexual harassment and familiarity with a type of e-mail were also related to lower offensiveness evaluations for some messages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmourS. (1998, November 12). E-mail delivers legal, privacy issues. USA Today, p. 03B
2.
ArmourS. (1999, May 4). Offensive e-mail in office on increase. USA Today, p. 01B
GruberJ. E. (1992). A typology of personal and environmental sexual harassment: Research and policy implications for the 1990s.Sex Roles,26, 447–464
7.
GutekB. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace: Impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men, and organizations.San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass
8.
GutekB. A.O'ConnorM. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard.Journal of Social Issues,51, 151–166
9.
HandJ. Z.SanchezL. (2000). Badgering or bantering? Gender differences in experience of, and reactions to, sexual harassment among U. S. high school students.Gender & Society,14, 718–746
10.
HarmonA. (1995, November 15). Student's expulsion over e-mail use raises concern. Los Angeles Times, p. A1
11.
KenigS.RyanJ. (1986). Sex differences in levels of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campus.Sex Roles,15, 535–549
12.
LarkinJ.PopaleniK. (1994). Heterosexual courtship violence and sexual harassment: The private and public control of young women.Feminism & Psychology,4, 213–227
13.
LottB.ReillyM. E.HowardD. R. (1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study.Signs,8, 296–319
MazerD. B.PercivalE. F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The relationships among perceptions, attitude, and experiences of sexual harassment in university students.Sex Roles,20, 135–147
16.
McCormickN.LeonardJ. (1996). Gender and sexuality in the cyberspace frontier.Women & Therapy,19(4), 109–119
17.
McCormickN. B.McCormickJ. W. (1992). Computer friends and foes: Content of undergraduates' electronic mail.Computers in Human Bahavior,8, 379–405
18.
MoultonM. (1998). Reducing charges of e-comm harassment.Computer & Security,17, 137–142
19.
MurnenS. K.SmolakL. (2000). The experience of sexual harassment among grade-school students: Early socialization of female subordination?Sex Roles,43, 1–17
20.
ReillyM. E.LottB.GalloglyS. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students.Sex Roles,15, 333–358
21.
ReynoldsW. M. (1982). Development of the reliable and valid short forms of the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale.Journal of Clinical Psychology,38, 119–129
22.
SennC. Y.RadtkeH. L. (1990). Women's evaluations of and affective reactions to mainstream violent pornography, nonviolent pornography, and erotica.Violence and Victims,5, 143–156
23.
SheffieldC. J. (1989). The invisible intruder: Women's experiences of obscene phone calls.Gender & Society,3, 483–488
24.
SimonR. J.SchererJ.RauW. (1999). Sexual harassment in the heartland? Community opinion on the EEOC suit against Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturingof America.Social Science Journal,36, 487–495
25.
SmithM. D.MorraN. N. (1994). Obscene and threatening telephone calls to women: Data from a Canadian National Survey.Gender & Society,8, 584–596
26.
SolomonD. H.Miller WilliamsM. L. (1997). Perceptions of social-sexual communication at work: The effects of message, situation, and observer characteristics on judgments of sexual harassment.Journal of Applied Communication Research,25, 196–216
TimmermanG. (2003). Sexual harassment of adolescents perpetuated by teachers and by peers: An exploration of the dynamics of power, culture, and gender in secondary schools.Sex Roles,48(5/6), 231–244
33.
TimmermanG.BajemaC. (1999). Incidence and methodology in sexual harassment research in Northwest Europe.Women's Studies International Forum,22, 673–681
34.
TownsendA. M.AalbertsR. J.WhitmanM. E. (1997, January). Danger on the desktop. HR Magazine, 42, 82
35.
TylerT. R. (2002). Is the Internet changing social life? It seems the more things change, the more they stay the same.Journal of Social Issues,58, 195–205
36.
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1997). Facts about sexual harassment. Retrieved on November 5, 2001, from http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/fs-sex.html
37.
WoodzickaJ. A.LaFranceM. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment.Journal of Social Issues,57, 15–30
