In the current study of 353 science and engineering faculty members, we examined whether three types of gender-based mistreatment might “chill” individuals’ perceptions of the professional climate, which might in turn undermine satisfaction with their jobs. We also tested gender differences in these relationships. Results indicated that for women, the relationship between gender discrimination (e.g., unequal access to resources) and job satisfaction was mediated by scholarly alienation and a negative workplace climate; gender derogation (e.g., disparaging comments) was related to organizational sexism toward women (OSTW), which was associated with perceptions of scholarly alienation and a negative workplace climate; these perceptions in turn predicted lower job satisfaction. For men, gender derogation was indirectly related to job satisfaction via scholarly alienation, and OSTW was indirectly related to job satisfaction via both climate variables. Analyses indicated that most of these indirect effects were stronger for women than men. We discuss these results for both sexes and suggest reasons why men’s climate perceptions may be “chilled” by exposure to sexism toward women. We also discuss implications for individuals working with women in male-dominated environments, such as organizational administrators and clinical practitioners.
AcquavitaS. P.PittmanJ.GibbonsM.Castellanos-BrownK. (2009). Personal and organizational diversity factors' impact on social workers' job satisfaction: Results from a national internet-based survey. Administration in Social Work, 33, 151–166.
2.
AvinaC.O’DonohueW. (2002). Sexual harassment and PTSD: Is sexual harassment diagnosable trauma?Journal of Traumatic Stress, 15, 69–75.
3.
BarbercheckM. (2001). Mixed messages: Men and women in advertisements in science. In Wyer, M.Barbercheck, M.Geisman D.OzturkH. O.WayneM. (Eds.), Women, science, and technology: A reader in feminist science studies (pp. 117–131). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BerdahlJ. L.MagleyV.WaldoC. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 527–547.
5.
BondM. A.PunnettL.PyleJ. L.CazecaD.CoopermanM. (2004). Gendered work conditions, health, and work outcomes. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 28–45.
6.
BuchananN. T.FitzgeraldL. F. (2008). Effects of racial and sexual harassment on work and the psychological well-being of African American women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 13, 137–151.
7.
BuchananN. T.SettlesI. H.WoodsK. C. (2008). Comparing sexual harassment subtypes for Black and White women: Double jeopardy, the Jezebel, and the cult of true womanhood. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 32, 347–361.
8.
CarrJ. Z.SchmidtA. M.FordJ. K.DeShonR. P. (2003). Climate perceptions matter: A meta-analytic path analysis relating molar climate, cognitive and affective states, and individual level work outcomes. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 605–619.
9.
CarrP. L.SzalachaL.BarnettR.CaswellC.InuiT. (2003). A “ton of feathers”: Gender discrimination in academic medical careers and how to manage it. Journal of Women’s Health, 12, 1009–1018.
10.
Center for the Study of Higher and Postsecondary Education & Center for the Education of Women. (1999). University of Michigan work-life study report. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan.
11.
ChanD. (2009). So why ask me? Are self-report data really that bad? In LanceC. E.VandenbergR. J. (Eds.), Statistical and methodological myths and urban legends: Doctrine, verity and fable in the organizational and social sciences (pp. 309–336). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group.
12.
CortinaL. M.FitzgeraldL. F.DrasgowF. (2002). Contextualizing Latina experiences of sexual harassment: Preliminary tests of a structural model. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 24, 295–311.
13.
CortinaL. M.SwanS.FitzgeraldL. F.WaldoC. (1998). Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 419–441.
14.
DipboyeR. L.HalversonS. K. (2004). Subtle (and not so subtle) discrimination in organizations. In GriffinR. W.O’Leary-KellyA. M. (Eds.), The dark side of organizational behavior (pp. 131–158). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
15.
DonovanM. A.DrasgowF.MunsonL. J. (1998). The perceptions of fair interpersonal treatment scale: Development and validation of a measure of interpersonal treatment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Psychology, 83, 683–692.
16.
DovidioJ. F.MajorB.CrockerJ. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In Heatherton T. F.Kleck R. E.HeblM. R.HullJ. G. (Eds.), The social psychology of stigma. (pp. 1–28). New York, NY: Guilford.
17.
EaglyA. H.KarauS. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598.
18.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1980). Guidelines on discrimination because of sex (Sect. 1604.11). Federal Register, 45, 74676–74677.
FindlerL.WindL. H.Mor BarakM. E. (2007). The challenge of workforce management in a global society: Modeling the relationship between diversity, inclusion, organizational culture, and employee well-being, job satisfaction and organizational commitment. Administration in Social Work, 31, 63–94.
21.
FitzgeraldL. F.DrasgowF.MagleyV. J. (1999). Sexual harassment in the armed forces: A test of an integrated model. Military Psychology, 11, 329–343.
22.
GlombT. M.RichmanW. L.HulinC. L.DrasgowF.SchneiderK. T.FitzgeraldL. F. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309–328.
23.
GrauerholzE. (1996). Sexual harassment in the academy: The case of women professors. In StockdaleM. S. (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 29–50). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
24.
GunterB.FurnhamA. (1996). Biographical and climate predictors of job satisfaction and pride in organization. The Journal of Psychology, 130, 193–208.
25.
HeblM. R.FosterJ. B.MannixL. M.DovidioJ. F. (2002). Formal and interpersonal discrimination: A field study of bias toward homosexual applicants. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 815–825.
26.
Hesson-McInnisM. S.FitzgeraldL. F. (1997). Sexual harassment: A preliminary test of an integrative model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 877–901.
27.
HitlanR. T.ClifftonR. J.DeSotoM. C. (2006). Perceived exclusion in the workplace: The moderating effects of gender on work-related attitudes and psychological health. North American Journal of Psychology, 8, 217–235.
28.
HitlanR. T.SchneiderK. T.WalshB. M. (2006). Upsetting behavior: Reactions to personal and bystander sexual harassment experiences. Sex Roles, 55, 187–195.
29.
HostlerS.GressardR. (1993). Appendix 3C: Gender fairness environment scale [developed by the University of Virginia School of Medicine Committee on Women]. Perceptions of the medical education environment. The Journal of the American Medical Women’s Association, 48, 51–54.
30.
HulinC. L.FitzgeraldL. F.DrasgowF. (1996). Organizational influences on sexual harassment. In StockdaleM. S. (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace: Perspectives, frontiers, and response strategies (pp. 127–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
31.
HurtadoS. (1998). Texas A & M University campus climate survey: A study of faculty views and experiences. Ann Arbor: CSHPE, School of Education, University of Michigan.
32.
JohnsonJ. J.McIntyeC. L. (1998). Organizational culture and climate correlates of job satisfaction. Psychological Reports, 82, 843–850.
33.
JoyceW. F.SlocumJ. W.von GlinowM. A. (1982). Person-situation interaction: Competing models of fit. Journal of Occupational Behaviour, 3, 265–280.
34.
KanterR. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York, NY: Basic Books.
35.
KickulJ.Liao-TrothM. A. (2003). The meaning behind the message: Climate perceptions and the psychological contract. Mid-American Journal of Business, 18, 23–32.
36.
KingE. B.DunleavyD. G.DunleavyE. M.JafferS.MorganW. B.Elder K.GraebnerR. (2011). Discrimination in the 21st century: Are science and the law aligned?Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 17, 54–75.
37.
KonikJ.CortinaL. M. (2008). Policing gender at work: Intersections of harassment based on sex and sexuality. Social Justice Research, 21, 313–337.
38.
LeskinenE. A.CortinaL. M.KabatD. B. (2011). Gender harassment: Broadening our understanding of sex-based harassment at work. Law and Human Behavior, 35, 25–39.
39.
LimS.CortinaL. M. (2005). Interpersonal mistreatment in the workplace: The interface and impact of general incivility and sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 483–496.
40.
MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (1998). Intergroup relations: Insights from a theoretically integrative approach. Psychological Review, 105, 499–529.
41.
MansfieldP. K.KochP. B.HendersonJ.VicaryJ. R.CohnM.YoungE. W. (1991). The job climate for women in traditionally male blue-collar occupations. Sex Roles, 25, 63–79.
42.
MartinP. Y.ReynoldsJ. R.KeithS. (2002). Gender bias and feminist consciousness among judges and attorneys: A standpoint theory analysis. Signs, 27, 665–701.
43.
Miner-RubinoK.CortinaL. M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward women: Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9, 107–122.
44.
Miner-RubinoK.CortinaL. M. (2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1254–1269.
45.
MunsonL. J.HulinC.DrasgowF. (2000). Longitudinal analysis of dispositional influences and sexual harassment: Effects on job and psychological outcomes. Personnel Psychology, 53, 21–46.
46.
MurrellA. J.OlsonJ. E.FriezeI. H. (1995). Sexual harassment and gender discrimination: A longitudinal study of women managers. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 139–149.
47.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (2007). Mplus user's guide (6th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Muthén & Muthén.
48.
National Science Foundation, Division of Science Resources Statistics. (2011). Women, minorities, and persons with disabilities in science and engineering: 2011 (Special report NSF 11-309). Arlington, VA. Retrieved fromhttp://www.nsf.gov/statistics/wmpd/
49.
O'ConnellC. E.KorabikK. (2000). Sexual harassment: The relationship of personal vulnerability, work context, perpetrator status, and type of harassment to outcomes. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 299–329.
50.
ParkerC. P.BaltesB. B.YoungS. A.HuffJ. W.AltmannR. A.LacostH. A.RobertsJ. E. (2003). Relationships between psychological climate perceptions and work outcomes: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 24, 389–416.
51.
ParkerS. K.GriffinM. A. (2002). What is so bad about a little name-calling? Negative consequences of gender harassment for overperformance demands and distress. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 7, 195–210.
52.
PiotrkowskiC. S. (1998). Gender harassment, job satisfaction, and distress among employed White and minority women. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 3, 33–43.
53.
PodsakoffP. M.MacKenzieS. B.LeeJ. Y.PodsakoffN. P. (2003). Common method biases in behavioral research: A critical review of the literature and recommended remedies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 88, 879–903.
54.
PrestonA. (1994). Why have all the women gone? A study of exit of women from science and engineering professions. American Economic Review, 84, 1446–1462.
55.
PrestonA. (2004). Leaving science: Occupational exit from science careers. New York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.
56.
RigerS.StokesJ.RajaS.SullivanM. (1997). Measuring perceptions of the work environment for faculty. The Review of Higher Education, 21, 63–78.
57.
RoosmalenE.McDanielS. A. (1998). Sexual harassment in academia: A hazard to women's health. Women & Health, 28, 33–54.
58.
SchneiderK. T.SwanS.FitzgeraldL. F. (1997). Job-related and psychological effects of sexual harassment in the workplace: Empirical evidence from two organizations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 401–415.
59.
SchultzV. (2006). Understanding sexual harassment law in action: What has gone wrong and what we can do about it. Thomas Jefferson Law Review, 29, 1–53.
60.
SeibertS. E.SilverS. R.RandolphW. A. (2004). Taking empowerment to the next level: A multiple-level model of empowerment, performance, and satisfaction. Academy of Management Journal, 47, 332–349.
61.
SettlesI. H.BuchananN. T.ColarB. K. (2012). The impact of race and rank on the sexual harassment of Black and White men in the U. S. military. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 13, 256–263.
62.
SettlesI. H.HarrellZ. A. T.BuchananN. T.YapS. C. Y. (2011). Fearful or bothered: Two types of sexual harassment appraisals. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 2, 600–608.
63.
SettlesI. H.JellisonW. A.Pratt-HyattJ. S. (2009). Identification with multiple social groups: The moderating role of identity change over time among women scientists. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 856–867.
64.
SimsC. S.DrasgowF.FitzgeraldL. F. (2005). The effects of sexual harassment on turnover in the military: Time-dependent modeling. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 1141–1152.
65.
SingletaryS. L.HeblM. R. (2009). Compensatory strategies for reducing interpersonal discrimination: The effectiveness of acknowledgments, increased positivity, and individuating information. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94, 797–805.
66.
SonnertG. (1995). Gender equity in science: Still an elusive goal. Issues in Science and Technology, 12, 53–58.
67.
UptonR. D.PanterA. T.DayeC. E.AllenW. R., & Wightman. (2012). Examining the relationship among self-reported assertiveness, perceived discrimination, and college environment in a national sample of Black women law students. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 54–65.
68.
WattsR. J.GriffithD. M.Abdul-AdilJ. (1999). Sociopolitical development as an antidote for oppression—theory and action. American Journal of Community Psychology, 27, 255–271.
69.
WilliamsJ. H.FitzgeraldL. F.DrasgowF. (1999). The effects of organizational practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. Military Psychology, 11, 303–328.
70.
WilliamsK. D.ZadroL. (2001). Ostracism: On being ignored, excluded, and rejected. In LearyM. R. (Ed.), Interpersonal rejection (pp. 21–53). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
71.
WyerM.BarbercheckM.GeismanD.ÖztürkH. O.WayneM. (2001). Women, science, and technology: A reader in feminist science studies. New York, NY: Routledge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
