Although power differentials are commonly believed to be central to sexual harassment experiences, prior empirical investigations have found no clear association between a perpetrator’s organizational status (as an index of his power) and perceptions by the victim that the perpetrator’s behavior constitutes sexual harassment. A model to explain this pattern as the result of two opposing mediators is forwarded and tested. Specifically, it was found that a harasser’s organizational status affects perceptions of his power, which increase a victim’s perceptions that the perpetrator’s behavior is harassing; however, it also was found that a harasser’s organizational status simultaneously affects perceptions of his social dominance, which decrease perceptions that his behavior is harassing. Thus, these mediators cancel each other, yielding a null finding when their effects are ignored. This finding supports both sociocultural and evolutionary models of sexual harassment perceptions and suggests that each can contribute to an understanding of sexual harassment experiences.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Aronson, E. , Brewer, M., & Carlsmith, J. M. (1985). Experimentation in social psychology. In G. Lindzey & E. Aronson (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (Vol. 1, 3rd ed., pp. 441-486). New York: Random House.
2.
Baron, R. M. , & Kenny, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator distinction in social-psychological research: Conceptual, strategic, and statistical considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
3.
Benson, D. J. , & Thomson, G. E. (1982). Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest, and gender stratification. Social Problems, 29, 236-251.
4.
Bentler, P. M. (1990). Comparative fit indexes in structural equation modeling. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 238-246.
5.
Buss, D. M. (1989). Sex differences in human mate preferences: Evolutionary hypotheses tested in 37 cultures. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 9, 1-49.
6.
Castellow, W. A. , Wuensch, K. L., & Moore, C. H. (1990). Effects of physical attractiveness of the plaintiff and defendant in sexual harassment judgements. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 547-562.
7.
Eagly, A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
8.
Eagly, A. H. , & Chravala, C. (1986). Sex differences in conformity: Status and gender-role interpretations. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 10, 203-220.
9.
Egbert, J. M., Jr. , Moore, C. H., Wuensch, K. L., & Castellow, W. A. (1992). The effect of litigant social desirability on judgements regarding a sexual harassment case. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 7, 569-579.
10.
Ellis, S. , Barak, A., & Pinto, A. (1991). Moderating effects of personal cognitions on experienced and perceived sexual harassment of women at the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 21, 1320-1337.
11.
Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993, February). The last great open secret: The sexual harassment of women in the workplace and academia. Transcript of a Science and Public Policy Seminary presented to the Federation of Behavioral, Psychological, and Cognitive Sciences, Washington, DC.
12.
Fitzgerald, L. F. , & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281-294.
13.
Fitzgerald, L. F. , Schullman, S. F., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, M., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.
14.
Fitzgerald, L. F. , Swan, S., & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn’t she just report him? The psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 117-138.
15.
Frazier, P. A. , Cochran, C. C., & Olson, A. M. (1995). Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21-38.
16.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
17.
Gutek, B. A. , Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1986). Interpreting socio-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30-48.
18.
Jensen, I. , & Gutek, B. (1982). Attributions and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 121-136.
19.
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.
20.
Kenig, S. , & Ryan, J. (1986). Sex differences in levels of tolerance and blame for sexual harassment on a university campus. Sex Roles, 15, 535-549.
21.
LaFontaine, E. , & Trudeau, L. (1986). The frequency, sources, and correlates of sexual harassment among women in traditional male occupations. Sex Roles, 15, 433-442.
22.
Lewitin, S. R. (1991, November 18). Law and the unreasonable woman. National Review, 43, 34-36.
23.
Littler-Bishop, S. , Seidler-Feller, D., & Opulach, R. E. (1982). Sexual harassment in the workplace as a function of the initiator’s status: The case of airline personnel. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 137-148.
24.
Martindale, M. (1991). Sexual harassment in the military: 1988. Sociological Practice Review, 2, 200-216.
25.
Paul, E. F. (1991, May/June). Bared buttocks and federal cases. Society, 28, 4-7.
26.
Popovich, P. , Gehlauf, D., Jolton, J., Somers, J., & Godinho, R. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment as a function of sex of rater and incident form and consequence. Sex Roles, 27, 609-625.
27.
Pryor, J. B. (1995). The phenomenology of sexual harassment: Why does sexual behavior bother people in the workplace?Consulting Psychology Journal: Practice and Research, 47, 160-168.
28.
Pryor, J. B. , & Day, J. D. (1988). Interpretations of sexual harassment: An attributional analysis. Sex Roles, 18, 405-417.
29.
Remoff, H. T. (1984). Sexual choice. New York: Dutton-Lewis.
30.
Riger, S. (1991). Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies and procedures. American Psychologist, 46, 497-505.
31.
Schneider, B. E. (1982). Consciousness about sexual harassment among heterosexual and lesbian women workers. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 75-98.
32.
Schneider, B. E. (1987). Graduate women, sexual harassment, and university policy. Journal of Higher Education, 38, 46-65.
33.
Sheets, V. L. , & Braver, S. L. (1993, April). Perceptions of sexual harassment: Effects of a harasser’s attractiveness. Paper presented to the Western Psychological Association, Phoenix, AZ.
34.
Sobel, M. E. (1986). Some new results on indirect effects and their standard errors in structural equation models. In N. Tuma (Ed.), Sociological methodology 1986 (pp. 159-186). Washington, DC: American Sociological Association.
35.
Studd, M. V. , & Gattiker, U. E. (1991). The evolutionary psychology of sexual harassment in organizations. Ethology and Sociobiology, 9, 249-290.
36.
Talking dirty . (1991, November 4). New Republic, 205, 7-8.
37.
Tangri, S. S. , Burt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 33-54.
38.
Townsend, J. M. , & Levy, G. (1990). Effects of potential partners’ physical attractiveness and socioeconomic status on sexuality and partner selection. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 19, 149-164.
39.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.), Sexual selection and the descent of man: 1871-1971. Chicago: Aldine.
40.
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (1980, November). Final amendment to guidelines on discrimination because of sex under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended. 29 CFR Part 1604. Federal Register, 45, 74675-74677.
41.
U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission . (1994, March). Enforcement guidance on Harris v. Forklift Sys., Inc.. Washington, DC: Author.
42.
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board . (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem?Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
43.
U. S. Merit Systems Protection Board . (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal government: An update. Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
44.
Weber-Burdin, E. , & Rossi, P. (1982). Defining sexual harassment: A replication and extension. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 111-120.
