A refined computer harassment paradigm: Validation, and test of hypotheses about target characteristics

Psychology of Women Quarterly

Volumn 32, Issue 1, 2008, Pages 22-35

  Siebler, Frank ^a,b   Sabelus, Saskia ^a,c   Bohner, Gerd ^a  

^a BIELEFELD UNIVERSITY   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF TROMSØ   (Norway)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 40149105279     PISSN: 03616843     EISSN: 14716402     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1471-6402.2007.00404.x     Document Type: Article

References (39)

1. Barak, A. (2005). Sexual harassment on the Internet. Social Science Computer Review, 23, 77 92.
2. Bohner, G., Jarvis, C. I., Eyssel, F., & Siebler, F. (2005). The causal impact of rape myth acceptance on men's rape proclivity: Comparing sexually coercive and noncoercive men. European Journal of Social Psychology, 35, 819 828.
3. Bohner, G., Reinhard, M.-A., Rutz, S., Sturm, S., Kerschbaum, B., & Effler, D. (1998). Rape myths as neutralizing cognitions: Evidence for a causal impact of anti-victim attitudes on men's self-reported likelihood of raping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 257 269.
4. Bohner, G., & Sturm, S. (1997). Evaluative Aspekte sozialer Identität bei Frauen und Männern: Vorstellung einer Skala des Kollektiven Selbstwerts in bezug auf das Geschlecht (KSW-G) [Evaluative aspects of social identity in women and men: A German scale of collective self-esteem concerning gender]. Psychologische Beiträge, 39, 322 335.
5. Brannon, L. (2002). Gender: Psychological perspectives (3rd ed.). Boston : Allyn & Bacon.
6. Buss, D. M., & Barnes, M. (1986). Preferences in human mate selection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 559 570.
7. Cohen, J., Cohen, P., West, S. G., & Aiken, L. S. (2003). Applied multiple regression/correlation analysis for the behavioral sciences. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum.
8. Dall'Ara, E., & Maass, A. (1999). Studying sexual harassment in the laboratory: Are egalitarian women at higher risk? Sex Roles, 41, 681 704.
9. Driscoll, D. M., Kelly, J. R., & Henderson, W. L. (1998). Can perceivers identify likelihood to sexually harass? Sex Roles, 38, 557 588.
10. Eagly, A. H., Ashmore, R. D., Makhijani, M. G., & Longo, L. C. (1991). What is beautiful is good, but...: A meta-analytic review of research on the physical attractiveness stereotype. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 109 128.
11. Eckes, T., & Six-Materna, I. (1999). Hostilität und Benevolenz: Eine Skala zur Erfassung des ambivalenten Sexismus [Hostility and benevolence: A scale measuring ambivalent sexism]. Zeitschrift für Sozialpsychologie, 30, 211 228.
12. Eyssel, F., & Bohner, G. (2007). The rating of sexist humor under time pressure as an indicator of spontaneous sexist attitudes. Sex Roles, 57, 651-660.
13. Fiedler, K., & Bluemke, M. (2005). Faking the IAT: Aided and unaided response control on the Implicit Association Tests. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 27, 307 316.
14. Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Magley, V. (1997). But was it really sexual harassment? Legal, behavioral, and psychological definitions of the workplace victimization of women. In W. O'Donohue (Ed. Sexual harassment: Theory, research, and treatment (pp. 5 28). Boston : Allyn & Bacon.
15. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491 512.
16. Golden, J. H., Johnson, C. A., & Lopez, R. A. (2001). Sexual harassment in the workplace: Exploring the effects of attractiveness on perception of harassment. Sex Roles, 45, 767 784.
17. Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco : Jossey-Bass.
18. 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.
19. Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A collective self-esteem scale: Self-evaluation of one's social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302 318.
20. 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.
21. Mitchell, D., Hirschman, R., Angelone, D. J., & Lilly, R. S. (2004). A laboratory analogue for the study of peer sexual harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 194 203.
22. Musch, J., Brockhaus, R., & Bröder, A. (2002). Ein Inventar zur Erfassung von zwei Faktoren sozialer Erwünschtheit [An inventory for the assessment of two factors of social desirability]. Diagnostica, 48, 121 129.
23. O'Donohue, W., Downs, K., & Yeater, E. A. (1998). Sexual harassment: A review of the literature. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 3, 111 128.
24. O'Hare, E. A., & O'Donohue, W. (1998). Sexual harassment: Identifying risk factors. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27, 561 580.
25. Paludi, M., & Paludi, C. (2003). Academic and workplace sexual harassment: A handbook of social science, legal, cultural, and management perspectives. Westport, CT : Praeger.
26. Paulhus, D. L. (1998). Manual for the Balanced Inventory of Desirable Responding. Toronto, Canada : Multi-Health Systems.
27. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65 85.
28. Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269 290.
29. Pryor, J. B., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (2003). Sexual harassment research in the United States. In S. Einarsen, H. Hoel, D. Zapf & C. L. Cooper (Eds. Bullying and emotional abuse in the workplace: International perspectives in research and practice (pp. 79 100). London : Taylor & Francis.
30. 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.
31. Schmidt, E. A., Gerger, H., Kley, H., Siebler, F., & Bohner, G. (2003). Eine deutschsprachige Skala zur Erfassung der Neigung zu sexueller Belästigung [A German scale for assessing sexual harassment proclivity]. Poster presented at the 9th Tagung der Fachgruppe Sozialpsychologie, Heidelberg, September 21-24, 2003.
32. Schuster, B., Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (1999). Sexuelle Belästigung und Mobbing am Arbeitsplatz [Sexual harassment and bullying in the workplace]. In C. Graf Hoyos & D. Frey (Eds. Arbeits- und Organisationspsychologie: Ein Lehrbuch (pp. 188 199). Weinheim, Germany : Beltz Psychologie Verlags Union.
33. Schwarz, N., & Strack, F. (1981). Manipulating salience: Causal assessment in natural settings. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6, 554 558.
34. Sczesny, S., & Stahlberg, D. (2000). Sexual harassment over the telephone: Occupational risk at call centres. Work and Stress, 14, 121 136.
35. Tangri, S. S., Burt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of Social Issues, 38 (4 33 54.
36. U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1995). Sexual harassment in the federal government: Trends, progress, continuing challenges. Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office.
37. Vanselow, N., & Bohner, G. (2006). Beurteilung sexuell belästigenden Verhaltens: Die Rolle von Kontextfaktoren [Ratings of sexually harassing behaviors: The role of context factors]. Poster presented at the 48th Tagung experimentell arbeitender Psychologen, Mainz, Germany, March 26-29, 2006.
38. Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2005). The effects of subtle sexual harassment on women's performance in a job interview. Sex Roles, 53, 67 77.
39. Zippel, K. S. (2006). The politics of sexual harassment: A comparative study of the United States, the European Union, and Germany. New York : Cambridge University Press.