Abstract
Sexual harassment has come to the forefront in the past two decades as an issue that warrants greater attention both in terms of social policy reform and academic research. Although sexual harassment has been found to negatively impact job satisfaction, somatic complaints, and supervisor satisfaction, little is known about the specific way in which changing demography in managerial ranks impacts the way in which harassment is perceived. As women continue to advance into managerial ranks, a closer examination of both supervisor and subordinate gender with regard to harassment consequences is warranted. In this research, we examine with a sample of 130 municipal court clerks whether gender impacts harasser punishment, the degree to which harassers are considered responsible for harassment, and the degree to which the harassment is perceived as serious. The design is a 2×2×2 factorial, with independent variables of harasser (male/female), harassee (male/female), and harassment type (quid pro quo, hostile environment). Contrary to what was hypothesized, men who harassed women were viewed more responsible for the harassment than men who harassed men, while a corresponding difference did not occur for women. Similarly, sexual harassment was viewed most seriously when men harassed women. When it came to administering punishment, however, women who harassed men were given more stringent punishment, providing support for views held by society regarding the appropriateness of men's and women's sexual behavior. Results are discussed with regard to status incongruency theory, societal views, and media attention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.