COMPLAINANT BEHAVIORAL TONE, AMBIVALENT SEXISM, AND PERCEPTIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Psychology, Public Policy, and Law

Volumn 16, Issue 1, 2010, Pages 56-84

  Wiener, Richard L ^a   Reiter Palmon, Roni ^b   Winter, Ryan J ^c   Richter, Erin ^a   Humke, Amy ^a   Maeder, Evelyn ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

^b UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA AT OMAHA   (United States)

^c FLORIDA INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

aggressive and submissive complainants; ambivalent sexism; sexual harassment

Indexed keywords

EID: 75849157566     PISSN: 10768971     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1037/a0018434     Document Type: Article

References (59)

1. Baker D.D., Terpstra D.E., and Cutler B.D. Perceptions of sexual harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. Journal of Psychology 124 (1990) 409-416
2. Bargh J.A., Chaiken S., and Govender R. The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 62 (1992) 893-912
3. Bargh J.A., Chen M., and Burrows L. Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 71 (1996) 230-244
4. Blair I.V., and Banajia M. Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (1996) 1142-1163
5. Blumenthal J.A. The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior 22 (1998) 33-59
6. Brooks v. City of San Mateo, 229 F. 3d 917 (9th Cir. 2000).
7. Burgess D., and Borgida E. Refining sex-role spillover theory: The role of gender subtypes and harasser attributions. Social Cognition 15 (1997) 291-311
8. Burlington Northern v. White, 364 F. 3d 789 (2006).
9. Clark County School District v. Breeden, 523 U.S. 268 (2001).
10. Dijksterhuis A., Spears R., and Postmes T. Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 75 (1998) 862-871
11. Ellison v. Brady, 924 F. 2d 872 (9th Cir. 1991).
12. Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998).
13. Fuller v. City of Oakland, 47 F 3d. 1522 (1995).
14. Glicke P., and Fiske S.T. The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 70 (1996) 491-512
15. Gutek B.A. Sex and the workplace: Impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men, and organizations (1985), Jossey-Bass, San Francisco
16. Gutek B.A., Morasch B., and Cohen A.G. Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior 22 (1982) 30-48
17. Gutek B.A., O'Connor M.A., Melancon R., Stockdale M., Geer T.M., and Done R.S. 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 (1999) 596-629
18. Harris v. Forklift Systems, Inc., 114 S. Ct. 367 (1993).
19. Hartnett J.J., Robinson D., and Singh B. Perceptions of males and females toward sexual harassment and acquiescence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality 4 (1989) 291-298
20. Higgins E.T., Rholes W.S., and Jones C.R. Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 54 (1977) 181-192
21. Hurt L.E., Wiener R.L., Russell B.L., and Mannen R.K. Gender differences in evaluating social-sexual conduct in the workplace. Behavioral Sciences and the Law 17 (1999) 413-433
22. Jones E.E., Remland M.S., and Brunner C.C. Effects of employment relationship, response of recipient, and sex of rater on perceptions of sexual harassment. Perceptual and Motor Skills 65 (1987) 55-63
23. Kovera M.B., McAuliffe B.D., and Hebert K.S. 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 (1999) 362-375
24. Lepore L., and Brown R. Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable?. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 72 (1997) 275-287
25. Lerner M.J. The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion (1980), Plenum Press, New York
26. Maeder E., and Wiener R.L. Does a truck driver see what a nurse sees? The effects of occupation type on perceptions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles 56 (2007) 801-810
27. Maes J. Blaming the victim: Belief in control or belief in justice?. Social Justice Research 7 (1994) 69-90
28. Melton G.B. The significance of law in the everyday lives of children and families. Georgia Law Review 22 (1988) 851-895
29. Melton G.B. Law, science, humanity: The normative foundation of social science in law. Law and Human Behavior 14 (1990) 315-332
30. Melton G.B., and Saks M.J. The law as an instrument of socialization and social structure. In: Melton G.B. (Ed). The law as a behavioral instrument: Nebraska Symposium on Motivation (1985), University of Nebraska Press, Lincoln 235-277
31. Meritor Savings Bank v. Vinson, 477 U.S. 57 (1986).
32. O'Connor M., Gutek B.A., Stockdale M., Geer T.M., and Melancon R. Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law and Human Behavior 28 (2004) 69-95
33. Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998 (1999).
34. Powell G.N. Effects or sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles 18 (1986) 405-417
35. Rabidue v. Osceola Refining Co., 805 F. 2d 611 (6th Cir. 1986).
36. Rotundo M., Nguyen D., and Sackett P. A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001) 914-922
37. Russell B.L., and Trigg K.Y. Tolerance of sexual harassment: An examination of gender differences, ambivalent sexism, social dominance, and gender roles. Sex Roles 50 (2004) 565-573
38. Saal F.E., Johnson C.B., and Weber N. Friendly or sexy? It may depend on whom you ask. Psychology of Women Quarterly 13 (1989) 263-276
39. Shaver K. Defensive attribution effects of severity and relevance on the responsibility assigned for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 14 (1970) 101-113
40. Stockdale M.S., Berry C., Schneider R.W., and Cao F. Perceptions of the sexual harassment of men. Psychology of Men & Masculinity 5 (2004) 158-167
41. Stockdale M.S., O'Connor M., Gutek B.A., and Geer T. The relationship between prior sexual abuse and reactions to sexual harassment: Literature review and empirical study. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 8 (2002) 64-95
42. Stockdale M.S., Visio M., and Batra L. The sexual harassment of men: Evidence for a broader theory of sexual harassment and sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law 5 (1999) 630-664
43. Terpstra D.E., and Baker D.D. A framework for the study of sexual harassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 7 (1986) 17-34
44. Thomann D.A., and Wiener R.L. Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles 17 (1987) 573-591
45. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S. C. Sec. 2000c-(a)(1) (1964).
46. Valentine-French S., and Radtke H.L. Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles 21 (1989) 545-555
47. Walster E. Assignment of responsibility for an accident. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 3 (1966) 73-79
48. Wayne J.H., Riordan C.M., and Thomas K.M. Is all sexual harassment viewed the same? Mock juror decisions in same- and cross-gender cases. Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001) 179-187
49. Wiener R.L. A psycholegal and empirical approach to the medical standard of care. Nebraska Law Review 69 (1990) 112-157
50. Wiener R.L. Social analytic jurisprudence and tort law: Social cognition goes to court. Saint Louis University Law Journal 37 (1993) 503-551
51. Wiener R.L., Hackney A., Kadela K., Rauch S., Seib H., Warren L., and Hurt L.E. The fit and implementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evaluations. Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2002) 747-764
52. Wiener R.L., and Hurt L.E. Social sexual conduct at work: How do workers know when it is harassment and when it is not?. California Western Law Review 34 (1997) 53-99
53. 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 issue]. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5, 556-595.
54. Wiener R.L., and Hurt L.E. How do people evaluate social-sexual conduct: A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2000) 75-85
55. Wiener R.L., Hurt L.E., Russell B.L., Mannen R.K., and Gasper C. Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior 21 (1997) 71-93
56. Wiener R.L., Voss A.M., Winter R.J., and Arnot L. The more you see it, the more you know it: Memory accessibility and sexual harassment judgments. Sex Roles 53 (2005) 807-820
57. Wiener R.L., Watts B.A., Goldkamp K.H., and Gasper C. Social analytic investigation of hostile work environments: A test of the reasonable woman standard. Law and Human Behavior 19 (1995) 263-281
58. Wiener R.L., and Winter R.J. Totality of circumstances in sexual harassment decisions: A decision-making model. In: Wiener R.L., Bornstein B.H., Schopp R., and Willborn S. (Eds). Social consciousness in legal decision making: Psychological perspectives (2007), Springer, New York 171-196
59. Wiener R.L., Winter R., Rogers M., and Arnot L. The effects of prior workplace behavior on subsequent sexual harassment judgments. Law and Human Behavior 28 (2004) 47-67