The Effects of Prior Workplace Behavior on Subsequent Sexual Harassment Judgments

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 47-67

  Wiener, Richard L ^a   Winter, Ryan ^a,b   Rogers, Melanie ^b   Arnot, Lucy ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Harassment judgments; Prior behavior

Indexed keywords

AGGRESSION; ARTICLE; BEHAVIOR; COURT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; FEMALE WORKER; GENDER; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; PREDICTION; QUESTIONNAIRE; RESPONSIBILITY; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL HARASSMENT; SOCIAL BEHAVIOR; VICTIM; WORK; WORK ENVIRONMENT; WORKPLACE;

BEHAVIOR; DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; JUDICIAL ROLE; MALE; PREJUDICE; SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL HARASSMENT; UNITED STATES; WORKPLACE;

EID: 1642293943     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:LAHU.0000015003.72223.63     Document Type: Article

References (57)

1. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horseman of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In Robert S. Wyer & Thomas K. Srull (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Cognition: Vol 1. Basic Processes (pp. 1-40). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
2. Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer & Thomas K. Srull (Eds.), The automaticity of everyday life: Advances in Social Cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 231-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
3. Bargh, J. A., Chaiken, S., & Govender, R. (1992). The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893-912.
4. Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and sterotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
5. Baron, R. M., & Kenney, D. A. (1986). The moderator-mediator variable distinction in social psychological research: Conceptual strategic and statistic considerations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 51, 1173-1182.
6. Blair, I. V., & Banajia, M. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1142-1163.
7. Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 33-59.
8. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F.3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000).
9. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1997a). Sexual harassment: An experimental test of sex-role spillover theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 63-75.
10. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1997b). Refining sex-role spillover theory: The role of gender subtypes and harasser attributions. Social Cognition, 15, 291-311.
11. Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth 118 S. Ct. 2257 (1998).
12. Dijksterhuis, A., Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1998). Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 862-871.
13. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998).
14. Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of applied Psychology, 82, 578-589.
15. Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425-445.
16. 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.
17. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Counterfactuals as behavioral primes: Priming the simulation heuristic and consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 384-409.
18. Glicke, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
19. Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
20. Gutek, B. A. (1992). Understanding sexual harassment at work. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 6, 335-358.
21. Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1982). Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30-48.
22. Gutek, B. A., & O'Connor, M. A. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 151-166.
23. Gutek, B. A., O'Connor, M. A., Melancon, R., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., & Done, R. S. (1999). Utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multi-method, multi-study examination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 596-629.
24. Hartnett, J. J., Robinson, D., & Singh, B. (1989). Perceptions of males and females toward sexual harassment and acquiescence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 291-298.
25. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993).
26. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 211 (9th Cir. 1979).
27. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C. R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 181-192.
28. Jones, E. E., 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.
29. Kovera, M. B., McAuliffe, B. D., & Hebert, K. S. (1999). Reasoning about scientific evidence: Effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 362-375.
30. Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 275-287.
31. Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L., & DeNardo, M. (1999). Outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 390-402.
32. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
33. Miller v. Bank of America, 600 F.2d 211 (9th Cir. 1979).
34. O'Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T. M., & Melancon, R. (2003). Explanning sexual harassment judgements; Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 69-95.
35. Powell, G. N. (1986). Effects or sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 18, 405-417.
36. Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir.1986).
37. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D., & Sackett, P. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914-922.
38. Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31, 493-517.
39. Saal, F. E., Johnson, C. B., & Weber, N. (1989). Friendly or sexy? It may depend on whom you ask. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 13, 263-276.
40. Schneider, K. T., Swan, S., & Fitzgerald, L. 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.
41. Sheffey, S., & Tindale, R. S. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 22, 1502-1520.
42. Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (1997). Using primed exemplars during impression formation: Interpretation or comparison? European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 357-367.
43. Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., & Van Der Pligt, J. (1997). Categories of category accessibility: The impact of trait concept versus exemplar priming on person judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 47-76.
44. Stapel, D., & Winkielman, P. (1998). Assimilation and contrast as a function of context-target similarity, distinctness, and dimensional relevance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 634-646.
45. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1986). A framework for the study of sexual harassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 17-34.
46. Thomann D. A., & Wiener, R. L. (1987). Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles, 17, 573-591.
47. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000c-(a)(1) (1964).
48. Valantine-French, S., & Radtke, H. L. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles, 21, 545-555.
49. Waldo, C. R., Berdahl, J. L., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1998). Are men sexually harassed? If so, by whom. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 59-79.
50. Wayne, J. H., Riordan, C. M., & Thomas, K. M. (2001). Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 179-187.
51. Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control and automaticity in social life. In Daniel T. Gilbert, Susan T. Fiske, & Gardner Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 446-496). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
52. Wiener, R. L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Rauch, S., Seib, H., Warren, L., et al. (2002). The fit and implementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 747-764.
53. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (1997). Social sexual conduct at work: How do workers know when it is harassment and when it is not? California Western Law Review, 34, 53-99.
54. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (1999). An interdisciplinary approach to understanding social-sexual conduct at work. In R. Wiener & B. Gutek (Eds.), Advances in sexual harassment research, theory, and policy. Special Edition of Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 556-595.
55. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social-sexual conduct: A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75-85.
56. Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L. E., Russell, B. L., Mannen, R. K., & Gasper, C. (1997). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 71-93.
57. Wiener, R. L., Watts, B. A., Goldkamp, K. H., & Gasper, C. (1995). Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments: A test of the reasonable woman standard. Law and Human Behavior, 19, 263-281.