The more you see it, the more you know it: Memory accessibility and sexual harassment judgments

Sex Roles

Volumn 53, Issue 11-12, 2005, Pages 807-820

  Wiener, Richard L ^a   Voss, Amy M ^a   Winter, Ryan J ^a,b   Arnot, Lucy ^a,b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b CITY UNIVERSITY OF NEW YORK   (United States)

Author keywords

Availability heuristic; Legal decision making; Sexual harassment

Indexed keywords

EID: 29844455598     PISSN: 03600025     EISSN: 15732762     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s11199-005-8294-2     Document Type: Review

References (87)

1. Adams, J. W., Kottke, J. L., & Padgitt, J. S. (1983). Sexual harassment of university students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 484-490.
2. Anderson, C. A. (1983). Imagination and expectation: The effect of imagining behavioral scripts on personal influences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 293-305.
3. Anderson, C. A., Lepper, M. R., & Ross, L. (1980). Perseverance of social theories: The role of explanation in the persistence of discredited information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 39, 1037-1049.
4. Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. Journal of Psychology, 124, 409-416.
5. Bargh, J. A. (1994). The four horseman of automaticity: Awareness, intention, efficiency, and control in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), The handbook of social cognition; Vol. 1. Basic processes (pp. 3-22). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6. Bargh, J. A. (1997). The automaticity of everyday life. In R. S. Wyer (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. 10, pp. 231-246). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
7. Bargh, J. A., Raymond, P., & Pryor, J. B. (1995). Attractiveness of the underling: An automatic power → sex association and its consequences for sexual harassment and aggression. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 768-781.
8. Bergman, M. E., Langhout, P. A., Palmieri, R. D., Cortina, L. M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). The (un)reasonableness of reporting: Antecedents and consequences of reporting sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57, 230-242.
9. 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.
10. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F. 3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000).
11. Brunei, F. F., & Nelson, M. R. (2003). Message order effects and gender differences in advertising persuasion. Journal of Advertising Research, 43, 330-341.
12. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1997a). Sexual harassment: An experimental test of sex-role spillover theory. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 63-75.
13. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1997b). Refining sex-role spillover theory: The role of gender subtypes and harasser attributions. Social Cognition, 15, 291-311.
14. Burlington Industries Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998).
15. Cacioppo, J. T., von Hippel, W., & Ernst, J. M. (1997). Mapping cognitive structures and processes through verbal content. The thought-listing technique. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 65, 928-940.
16. Carroll, J. S. (1978). The effect of imagining an event on expectations for the event: An interpretation in terms of the availability heuristic. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 14, 88-96.
17. Chibnall, J. T., & Wiener, R. L. (1988). Disarmament decisions as social dilemmas. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 75, 867-879.
18. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1997). Guidelines on discrimination because of sex. 29 CFR 1604.1 l(b). Washington, DC: Author.
19. Ellison v. Brady, 924 F.2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991).
20. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S.Ct. 2275 (1998).
21. Fiske, S. T., Pratto, F., & Pavelchak, M. A. (1983). Citizens' images of nuclear war: Content and consequences. Journal of Social Issues, 39(1), 41-65.
22. Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against women in the workplace. American Psychologist, 48, 1070-1076.
23. 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.
24. Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281-294.
25. Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., & Bailey, N. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.
26. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
27. Gol, A. R., & Cook, S. W. (2004). Exploring the underlying dimensions of coping: A concept mapping approach. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23, 155-171.
28. 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.
29. Gregory, W. L., Cialdini, R. B., & Carpenter, K. M. (1982). Self-relevant scenarios as mediators of likelihood estimates and compliance: Does imagining make it so? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 89-99.
30. Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
31. Gutek, B. A. (1992). Understanding sexual harassment at work. Notre Dame Journal of Law, Ethics and Public Policy, 6, 335-358.
32. Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1983). Interpreting social sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30-48.
33. 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.
34. Haddock, C., & Zanna, M. P. (1998). On the use of open-ended measures to assess attitudinal components. British Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 129-149.
35. Harned, M. S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2002). Understanding a link between sexual harassment and eating disorder symptoms: A mediational analysis. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 70, 1170-1181.
36. Harris v. Forklift Systems Inc., 114 S.Ct. 367 (1993).
37. 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.
38. Hastie, R., & Park, B. (1986). The relationship between memory and judgment depends on whether the judgment task is memory-based or on-line. Psychological Review, 93, 258-268.
39. Henson v. City of Dundee, 682 F.2d 211 (9th Cir. 1979).
40. Hesson-Mclnnis, M. S., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1997). Sexual harassment: A preliminary test of an integrative model. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 27, 877-901.
41. Horvath, M. (1996). Sex crime and the media. Psychology, Crime, & Law, 10, 465-466.
42. Ilies, R., Hauserman, N., Schwochau, S., & Stibal, J. (2003). Reported incidence rates of work-related sexual harassment in the United States: Using meta-analysis to explain reported rate disparities. Personnel Psychology, 56, 607-631.
43. Jensen, I. W., & Gutek, B. A. (1982). Attributions and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 38(4), 121-136.
44. Johar, G. V., Moreau, P., & Schwarz, N. (2003). Gender-typed advertisements and impression formation: The role of chronic and temporary accessibility. Journal of Consumer Psychology, 13, 220-229.
45. 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.
46. 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, 535-549.
47. 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.
48. Lassar, W. M., Folkes, V. S., Grewal, D., & Costley, C. (1998). Consumer affective reactions to product problems when the timing of the warranty expiration varies. Journal of Business Research, 42, 265-270.
49. Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 853-870.
50. Magley, V. J. (2002). Coping with sexual harassment: Reconceptualizing women's resistance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 930-946.
51. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
52. Miller v. Bank of America, 600 F.2d 211 (9th Cir. 1979).
53. Padgitt, S. C., & Padgitt, J. S. (1986). Cognitive structure of sexual harassment: Implications for university policy. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 34-39.
54. Petty, R. E., Cacioppo, J. T., & Heesacker, M. (1981). Effects of rhetorical questions on persuasion: A cognitive response analysis. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 40(3), 432-440.
55. Powell, G. N. (1986). Effects or sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 75, 405-417.
56. Pryor, J. B., LaVite, C. M., & Stoller, L. M. (1993). A social-psychological analysis of sexual harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 68-83.
57. Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F.2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986).
58. Ross, L. D., Lepper, M. R., Strack, F., & Steinmetz, J. (1977). Social explanation and social expectation: Effects of real and hypothetical explanations on subjective likelihood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 35, 817-829.
59. 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.
60. 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.
61. Rudman, L. A., Borgida, E., & Robertson, B. A. (1995). Suffering in silence: Procedural justice versus gender socialization issues in university sexual harassment grievance procedures. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 519-541.
62. Russell, J. A., & Fehr, B. (1994). Fuzzy concepts in a fuzzy hierarchy: Varieties of anger. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 186-205.
63. Sarrica, M., & Contarello, A. (2004). Peace, war and conflict: Social representations shared by peace activists and non-activists. Journal of Peace Research, 41, 549-568.
64. 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.
65. Sherman, S. J., Cialdini, R. B., Schwartzman, D. F., & Reynolds, K. B. (1985). Imagining can heighten or lower the perceived likelihood of contracting a disease: The mediating effect of ease of imagery. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 11, 118-127.
66. Sia, T. L., Lord, C. G., Blessum, K. A., Ratcliff, C. D., & Lepper, M. R. (1997). Is a rose always a rose? The role of social category exemplar change in attitude stability and attitude-behavior consistency. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 501-514.
67. Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (1997). Using primed exemplars during impression formation: Interpretation or comparison? European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 357-367.
68. Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., & van der Plight, 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.
69. Stapel, D. A., & 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.
70. Stockdale, M. S., O'Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., & Greer, T. (2002). The relationship between prior sexual abuse and reactions to sexual harassment: Literature review and empirical study. Psychology, Public. Policy, & Law, 8, 65-95.
71. Stunner, P. J., Bruch, M. A., Haase, R. F., & Amico, K. R. (2002). Convergent validity in cognitive assessment of social anxiety: Endorsement versus production methods in deriving states of mind ratio. Cognitive Therapy & Research, 26, 487-503.
72. Tarico, V. S., Van Velzen, D. R., & Altmaier, E. M. (1986). Comparison of thought-listing rating methods. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 81-83.
73. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1986). A framework for the study of sexual harassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 17-34.
74. Thomann, D. A., & Wiener, R. L. (1987). Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles, 17, 573-591.
75. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000c-(a)(l) (1964).
76. Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1973). Availability: A heuristic for judging frequency and probability. Cognitive. Psychology, 5, 207-232.
77. Valentine-French, S., & Radtke, H. L. (1989). Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles, 21, 545-555.
78. Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control and automaticity in social life. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 446-496). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
79. Wiener, R. L., Hackney, A., Kadela, K., Rauch, S., Seib, H., Warren, L., & Hurt, L. E. (2002). The fit and implementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology, 87, 747-764.
80. 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.
81. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (1999). An interdisciplinary approach to understanding social sexual conduct at work. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 556-595.
82. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social-sexual conduct: A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75-85.
83. 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.
84. 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.
85. Wiener, R. L., Winter, R., Reiter-Palman, R., Arnot, L., Voss, A. M., Richter, E., & Maeder, E. (under review). The effects of prior conduct, legal standards, and ambivalent sexism on sexual harassment judgments.
86. Wiener, R. L., Winter, R., Reiter-Palmon, R., Voss, A. M., Richter, E., & Arnot, L. (under review). The effects of prior complainant conduct on subsequent sexual harassment judgments. Law and Human Behavior.
87. Wiener, R. L., Winter, R., Rogers, M., & Arnot, L. (2004). The effects of prior workplace behavior on subsequent sexual harassment judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 47-67.