Totality of circumstances in sexual harassment decisions: A decision-making model

Social Consciousness in Legal Decision Making: Psychological Perspectives

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 171-196

  Wiener, Richard L ^a   Winter, Ryan J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA LINCOLN   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84889985139     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-0-387-46218-9_9     Document Type: Chapter

References (38)

1. Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1990). Perceptions of sexual harassment: A re-examination of gender differences. Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary & Applied, 124, 409-416.
2. 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, 1, 1-40. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence 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 stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 230-244.
5. Blair, I. V., & Banajia, M. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1142-1163.
6. Burgess, D., & Borgida, E. (1997). Refining sex-role spillover theory: The role of gender subtypes and harasser attributions. Social Cognition, 15, 291-311.
7. Chen, M., & Bargh, J. A. (1997). Nonconscious behavioral confirmation processes: The self-fulfilling consequences of automatic sterotype activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 541-560.
8. Dijksterhuis, A, Spears, R., & Postmes, T. (1998) Seeing one thing and doing another: Contrast effects in automatic behavior. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75, 862-871.
9. Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491-512.
10. Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1982). Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30-48.
11. Gutek, B. A., & O'Connor, M. A. (1995). The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 151-166.
12. 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.
13. 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.
14. Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., & Jones, C.R. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 54, 181-192
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 275-287.
18. Pierce, C. A., Broberg, B. J., McClure, J. R., & Aguinis, H. (2004). Responding to sexual harassment complaints: Effects of a dissolved workplace romance on decision-making standards. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 95(1), 66-82.
19. Powell, G. N. (1986). Effects of sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 18, 405-417.
20. 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.
21. Sigal, J., Gibbs, M. S., & Goodrich, C. (2005). Cross-cultural reactions to academic sexual harassment: Effects of individualist vs. collectivist culture and gender of participants. Sex Roles, 52, 201-215.
22. Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (1997). Using primed exemplars during impression formation: Interpretation or comparison? European Journal of Social Psychology, 27, 357-367.
23. 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.
24. Stapel, D., & Winkielman, P. (1998). Assimilation and contrast as a function of contexttarget similarity, distinctness, and dimensional relevance. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 634-646.
25. Stockdale, M. S., Berry, C. G., Schneider, R. W., & Cao, F. (2004). Perceptions of the sexual harassment of men. Psychology of Men and Masculinity, 5(2), 158-167.
26. 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, and Law, 8(1), 64-95.
27. Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1986). A framework for the study of sexual harassment. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 7, 17-34.
28. Thomann D. A., & Wiener, R. L. (1987). Physical and psychological causality as determinants of culpability in sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles, 17, 573-591.
29. 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.
30. Wayne, J. H., Riordan, C. M., and 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.
31. Wegner, D. M., & Bargh, J. A. (1998). Control and automaticity in social life. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, and G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology: Vol. 1 (4th ed., pp. 446-496). Boston: McGraw-Hill.
32. 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.
33. 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.
34. 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.
35. Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social-sexual conduct: A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75-85.
36. 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.
37. 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.
38. 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.