Explaining Sexual Harassment Judgments: Looking Beyond Gender of the Rater

Law and Human Behavior

Volumn 28, Issue 1, 2004, Pages 69-95

  O'Connor, Maureen ^a   Gutek, Barbara A ^b   Stockdale, Margaret ^c   Geer, Tracey M ^d   Melançon, Renée ^e  

^a JOHN JAY COLLEGE OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA   (United States)

^c SOUTHERN ILLINOIS UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^d University of Arizona   (United States)

^e Baron and Budd   (United States)

Author keywords

Gender; Hostile sexism; Sexual harassment

Indexed keywords

ADULT; ARTICLE; ATTITUDE; BEHAVIOR; COMMUNITY; COURT; DECISION MAKING; FEMALE; GENDER; HOSTILITY; HUMAN; LAW SUIT; LEGAL LIABILITY; MAJOR CLINICAL STUDY; MALE; SAMPLE; SEX DIFFERENCE; SEXUAL BEHAVIOR; SEXUAL HARASSMENT; STUDENT; VIDEOTAPE; WORK ENVIRONMENT;

ADULT; AGE FACTORS; DATA COLLECTION; DECISION MAKING; FEDERAL GOVERNMENT; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS; PREJUDICE; SEX FACTORS; SEXUAL HARASSMENT; STUDENTS; UNITED STATES;

EID: 1642324935     PISSN: 01477307     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1023/B:LAHU.0000015004.39462.6e     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Adams, J. W., Kottke, J. L., & Padgitt, J. S. (1983, Nov). Sexual harassment of university students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 484-490.
2. Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. The Journal of Psychology, 124(4), 409-416.
3. Bargh, J. A., & Raymond, P. (1995). The naïve misuse of power: Non-conscious sources of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 85-96.
4. Blakely, G. L., Blakely, E. H., & Moorman, R. H. (1995). The relationship between gender, personal experience, and perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplace. Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8, 263-274.
5. 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, 33-57.
6. Ellison v. Brady, 924 F. 2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991).
7. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., et al. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in Academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.
8. Foulis, D., & McCabe, M. P. (1997). Sexual harassment: Factors affecting attitudes and perceptions. Sex Roles, 37, 773-798.
9. Frazier, P. A., Cochran, C. C., & Olson, A. M. (1995). Social science research on lay definitions of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 21-37.
10. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
11. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary explanations for gender equality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
12. Glick, P., Fiske, S. T., Mladinic, A., Saiz, J., Abrams, D., Masser, B., et al. (2000). Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: Hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 763-775.
13. Gowan, M. A., & Zimmerman, R. A. (1996). Impact of ethnicity, gender and previous experience on juror judgments in sexual harassment cases. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 596-617.
14. Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace: Impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
15. Gutek, B. A., & O'Connor, M. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard in sexual harassment law. Journal of Social Issues: Gender Stereotyping, Sexual Harassment, and the Law, 51(1), 151-166.
16. Gutek, B. A., O'Connor, M., Melançon, R., & Geer, T. (1998, June). Using realistic stimulus materials to study gender effects and the reasonable woman standard in hostile environment cases of harassment. Paper presented at the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues Stand-Alone Conference, Ann Arbor, MI.
17. Gutek, B. A., O'Connor, M., Melançon, R., Geer, T., Done, R., & Stockdale, M. (1999). The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multimethod, multistudy examination. Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5, 596-629.
18. Israel, L. M. (1997). Perception of sexual harassment: The influence of social support and age. Dissertation Abstracts International: Section B: The sciences & engineering, 57(8-B), 5329. US: Univ. Microfilms International. (Need UMI number)
19. Jenson v. Eveleth Taconite Co., 824 E Supp. 847 (D. Minn. 1993).
20. Kenig, S., & Ryan, J. (1986). Sex differences in levels of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campus. Sex Roles, 15(9/10), 535-549.
21. Konrad, A. M., & Gutek, B. A. (1986). Impact of work experiences on attitudes towards sexual harassment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 422-438.
22. Kovera, M. B., McAuliff, 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.
23. Kovera, M. B., Russano, M. B., & McAuliff, B. D. (2002). Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision makers' abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 8, 180-200.
24. Martel, R. F., Lane, D. M., & Emrich, C. (1996). Male-female differences: A computer simulation. American Psychologist, 51, 157-158.
25. Mazer, D. B., & Percival, E. F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The relationships among perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of sexual harassment in university students. Sex Roles, 20, 135-147.
26. O'Connor, M. (1998). Gender and the definition of sexual harassment: A meta-analytic review of the empirical literature. Dissertations Abstract International (B-59/04), 1917. U. S.: University Microfilm International (AAT9829396).
27. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998 (1998).
28. Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Gallogly, S. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students. Sex Roles, 15, 333-358.
29. Robinson v. Jacksonville Shipyards Inc., 760 F. Supp. 1486 (M. D. Fl. 1991).
30. Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D.-H., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914-922.
31. Bisom-Rapp, S., Stockdale, M. S., O'Connor, M., & Gutek, B. A. (in press). Coming to terms with zero tolerance sexual harassment policies. Journal of Forensic Psychology Practice
32. Stockdale, M. S., Gandolfo, C., Schneider, R., & Cao, F. (in press). Perceptions of Male Sexual Harassment Psychology of Men and Masculinities.
33. Stockdale, M. S., O'Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., & Geer, T. M. (2002). The relationship between prior sexual abuse and reactions to sexual harassment: Literature review and empirical study. Psychology, Public Policy and the Law, 8, 64-95.
34. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1987). A hierarchy of sexual harassment. The Journal of Psychology, 121, 599-605.
35. 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.
36. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social-sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75-85.
37. Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L., Russell, B., Mannen, K., & Gasper, C. (1997). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 71-98.
38. Wiener, R. L., Winter, R., Rogers, M., & Arnot, L. (2004). The effects of prior workplace behavior on current sexual harassment judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 47-68.
39. Yount, K. R. (1991). Ladies, flirts, and tomboys: Strategies for managing sexual harassment in an underground coal mine. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19, 396-422.