Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Anne K. Gordon
Melissa A. Cohen
Eyal Graaer
Steven Rogelberg
Bowling Green State University
Whether they are labeled as such or not, many aspect of many women's work experiences.
individuals will experience behaviors that consti- As stated in the Equal hployment Oppor-
tute sexual harassment (Mazer & Percival, 1989; tunity Commission 0 guidelines (as cited
Tangri,Burt, & Johnson, 1982). Many of these in- in James, 1981), sexual harassment is defined as
dividuals, predominantly women (Loy & Stewart, Unwelcome sexual advances, re-
1984), will consequently experience negative psy- quests for sexual favors, and other
chological, interpersonal, and health outcomes verbal or physical conduct of a
(Magley, Hulin, Fitzgerald, & DeNardo, 1999). sexual nature constitute sexual
Swim, Hyers, Cohen, and Ferguson (m), for ex- hmassment when (1) submission
ample, found that women experiencesexist hassles to such conduct is made either ex-
(e.g., being referred to as honey, overhearing con- plicitly or implicitly a term or con-
descending, sexist jokes) on a weekly basis, and dition of an individual's employ-
these hassles are associated with increased anger, ment, (2) submission to or rejec-
depression, and lower social state self-esteem. tion of such cocnduct by an indi-
Sexualharassmenthas also been shown to increase vidual is used as the basis for em-
cardiovascular reactivity (Schneider, Tomaka, & ployment decisions affecting such
Palacia, 2001). Thus, sexual harassment, sexual individual, or (3) such conduct has
innuendo, sexist remarks, and other fonns of sex- - - p u ' p 0 s e . e of unreason- - .
and gender-based prejudice constitutea pernicious ably interfering with an
individual's work performake or
creating an intimidating, hostile' or
offensive working environment.
Author's Note: Results from &is study were presmted at the
2002 annual meeting of the American Psychological Society, (P. 402)
New O r h , LA. However, most individualsare likely unaware
Inquiries can be directed to Anne Gordon at of the specifics of these legal definitions. For ex-
akg@bgnet.bgsu.edu.
ample, Bremer, Moore, and Bildersee (1991) found
Innocent Flirting or h i d Harrasment? Aq
that very few individuals within a sample of col- tioned, victims themselves may be confused i-,
lege students, personnel, and faculty were aware the perpetrator's behavior and therefore may ri
of their university's sexual harassment policies. respond in a clear and consistent manner that cork-
In the absence of familiarity with the law and veys that the behaviors are unwelcome. Addition-
workplace policies, individuals alternatively rely ally, many behaviors and interactions that an in-
-on-lay theories regzdkg~whatc o n s t i ~ s e x u a - 4ividual considers harassing will not be perceived
l: -mu...# rc
harassment (Pryor, 1985). Lay theories refer, in similarly by others, especially by the perpetrator
this context, to the assumptions, beliefs, and atti- (Baumeister, Stillwell, & Wotman, 1990; Gordon
tudes individuals hold regarding sexual harass- & Miller, 2000). Perpetrators, colleagues and
ment. Although lay theories are not fonnally ar- friends of the perpetrator, and even colleagues
ticulated, they are likely to include attributions and friends of the victim, may not appreciate how
regarding locus of causality (Williams, Brown, hurtful and upsethg the alleged harassment felt
L.ees-Haley, & Price, 1995) and influence how in- to the victim -especially regarding the accsumula-
dividuals interpret and respond to interactions tion of the offenses over time (Gilbert, 1981). In-
with coworkers and supervisors at work dividuals who do not fully appreciate the situa-
(Rosenberg, Perlstadt, & Phillips, 1993). For ex- tion as perceived by the victim may be surprised
ample, a woman may describe to a female friend and confused by the victim's apparent overreac-
a sexist joke that a male coworker told her. The tion and misinterpretation. Thus, lay theories are
friend may respond by saying that the man's be- likely to influence an individual's decision to file
havior constitutes sexual harassment and encour- a complaint and may contribute to the often un-
age her friend to file a complaint The woman di- pleasant interpersonal aftermath of filing a com-
rectly involved in the exchange, however, may plaint (Baker, Terpstra, & Larntz, 1990; Thacker,
strongly disagree with her friend's construal of 1996).
her coworker's behavior. Discrepanciesof thistype
occur not because two individuals interpret the Sex Differences and Same-SexHarassment
law differently, but because they hold different Many investigators have documented that
lay theories regarding what constitutes sexual ha- women's conceptdizations of sexual harassment
rassment. include a broader array of behaviors than do
Although the prototypical image of sexual ha- men's (e.g., Popovich, Gehlauf, Jolton, Ever+on,
rassment involves a male requiring a female s u b Godinho, Mastrangelo, et al., 1996; Rotundo,
ordinate to engage in sexual favors in exchange Nguyen, & Sackett, 2001). The documentation of
for advancement, promotion, or a pay raise (ie., this discrepancy and that it is usually a woman
quid pro quo harassment), most cases of sexual ha- rather than a man who is h a r d has influenced
rassment are not so obvious. Our research assumes the courts to replace the reasonable person stan-
that many interpersonal interactions between em- dard with the reasonable woman standard when
ployees are, particularly in their early stages, more evaluating claims of sexual harassment (Thacker
subtleand ambiguous(seealso Gutek & (YConnor, & Gohmann, l a ) . Appropriately, most research
1995; Inman & Baron, 19%). Smiles, winks, com- on sexual harassment has focused on the sexual
pliments, sexual innuendo and humor, suggestive harassment of women. However, more recently
glances, or even a touch on the arm or shoulder the harassment of men by both women and other
are often open to multiple, subjective construals mm has become the subject of empirical examina-
(Griffin & Ross, 1991). Recipients of such behav- tion (e.g., Abelson, 2001; Berdahl, Magley, &
ior may wonder whether these comments and Waldo, 1996). The least studied form of sexual
behaviors are friendly or sinister in nature, inten- harassment is that which involves a female per-
tional or accidental, a one-time event or likely to petrator and female victim. Interestingly, trends
persist in the foci of the psychological literature corre-
The importance of the subjective construal of spond with the rates of occurrence of various
behavior is a major tenet of social psychology forms of sexual harassment According to Poote
(Asch, 1956; Ross & Nisbett, 1991), as is the no- and Goodman-Delahunty (1999), inter-sex sexual
tion that ambiguous behaviors are particularly harassment is much more likely to involve a fe-
open to various interpretations. Lay theories re- male victim and a male perpetrator than vice
garding sexual harassment are, thus, important versa; however, same-sex sexual harassment is
to examine for several reasons. As already men- much more likely to involve males than females.
49 Innocent Flirting or Sexual Harrasment?
Work relationship
between perpetrator and
victim will be affected
Victim considew
behavior to be sexual
harassment
dependent variables of Perpetrator Sex, Victim perpetrator and victim would be affected, and
Sex, Degree of Contact, and Relationship Type thought the victim should file a complaint. All
were manipulated. (See Appendix.) dependent measures were assessed on Likert
After reading the scenario participants re- scales that ranged from 1(strongly disagree) to 5
sponded to 15close-ended items that represented (strongly agree). The words "victim" and "per-
the dependent variables. These items assessed the petrator" did not appear in any scenarios or any
degree to which the exchanges described in the of the dependent measures; rather dependent
scenarios were offensive, unacceptable, and con- measure were worded in reference to the names
stituted sexual harassment. The latter construct of the individuals described in the scenarios (e.g.,
was assessed from three different perspectives: Mark, Mary).
participant, perpetrator, and victim. For example,
lxuticipants indicated their agreement with state- Results
ments such as "Mark's behavior is sexual harass-
ment" "Mark probably considers his behavior to The 15 main dependent measures were s u b
be sexual harassment." and "Mary probably con- jected to a principal-axis factor analysis with
siders Mark's behavior to be sexual harassment," varimax rotation. Based on a scree plot and an
respectively. Participants were asked to indicate eigenvalue cut off of 1, four fadors emerged, ac-
the degree to which they attributed the counting for 67.4% of the variance. Items with
perpetrator's behavior to the perpetrator's per- factor loadings greater than .70 were included
sonality, the victim's personality, and the work- within that factor. The fourth factor consisted
place environment. Judgments were also made solely items that did -not-meetour factor-
regarding how typical the behavior was for the loading criterion, and therefore were not included
perpetrator, for bosses in general, and between as part of the find factor solution. Two additional
this perpetrator and victim' specificalh/.Addition- items did not load on any factor. Thus, these four
ally, participants indicated the degree to which items ("This is probably the way most bosses/
they felt sympathy for the victim, believed that coworkers act." "Perpetrator considers his/her
the perpetrator would act similarly in the future, behavior to be sexual harassment" "Perpetrator's
perceived that the work relationship between the behavior is due to the workplace environment"
'pixqqqo a w aropuxqtq
~ 'u)'= ,Lr 'w > d 'gga a03 P ~ O PWM M'p IaAq q d p uw 'apvr rox
(90~1'I)J 'Xas 3 m d ~ XdXaS lnFlTA X xaS ra)84abd -ra asl~-wmpadxaa n ampar o~ ' ( v A o ~ )
PW m = ,lr 'm > d '16'a= (%I 'I)$ 'xaS WJ!A
X "S JOWqadrad' ~ P 'pauFalcl0
V afi'LO' = rh 'MO' aauvrrv~30 srs4vuw aqvTrmTqInm z x z x
> d 'W06 = (m'1)s 'xJS ~ o ) a g h d F 'ZT' = zh 'MO' 6XZxZvWWPWnsaaM1CWQf q ~ p a p w o ~
> d '6T08 = (9021 'Z)J =uo=) 30 a%aa 30 slJafla WIN 7 q q r
- aw 'JW =a330 30 4m w s a n 30 4!
-pqqa' ~q aw OQ aria .saIqapA q ~ s o d u r ULUOJo~
iZpaupqqooqv araM suopxapq PUWspa.p u p u ~ q p d h a ~ v
aJaM =atJaf uoFlnqwv @ s n Q pue
J ~ @ I S POXPPV '(16' = as ' s z = y\l) mqws. .row3 a f l ~ 30 ~
a ~ssauSnoTJaS a q uo pap-I q q
~~ aW 30 STcmPW?PulUaMllaq a W 9(66' = SUWI -(m= r ) ) qou SVM '=am 30 S % q w 'JW
as '0~7= w)snouas a'om parapp~oaaraM qm -xg p q g a q qnq ' ( L I ~ A W - '09' p w w = 4
-1pxoqns PUBssoq uaawaq s u o ~ ~ v x a ) u l % ~ s m xaIqqar aq OQ p a ~ o ~81~313~ d u o ~ q P~S ~ ~Q v
-q~lW4ualod'TO' = zh 'M'> d 'L6'6 = (9OZT 'IIJ p m aSuag.0 30 s=uSnouaS a u .J'w=f y3laa W ! M
'PaFwo a- d ~ y s u o 9 9 a30 $ s f f a SUWr a q Jof w m SVM = I ~ Ps # ~ u o 3 3
y 'a1qq.m q~soduxo~ asuaffo 30 ssausnouas a q w
.uqnIos ~ o w j - a a ~W~nsar aw of
u0 WM (vAoNV)a m A 30 S I ~ F Utl I a1qv,I, ass . J a w 9 PAW Joua'aM (,;aldoad
~ s a s d quanbasqns
p qsou~I ~ T M A ~ Msyp 4qvqord sr ro)v4adradI,
..-,
9EZ CEZ
53 Innocent Flirting or Sexual Harrament?
however, each of these effects was qualified by a = .74), and both differed from, being higher than,
Perpetrator Sex x Victim Sex x Participant Sex x the moderate touch conditions (M = 3.31, SD =
Degree of Contact interaction, F(2 1%) = 6.81, p .87) at p < .001 in a Tukey's HSD test. Thus, per-
< .001, q2= .01, which is described below. sonality was perceived to play a greater causal
As shown in the top left and top center panels role in the scenarios that portrayed what might
of Figure 1, female participants evaluating ye- be considered the relatively rarer forms of ha-
narios involving female victims of either no con- rassment, namely, those involving a female per-
tact or minimal contact scenarios did not differ- petrator and a moderate degree of physical con-
entiate the seriousness of the offense based on tact.
the perpetrator's sex, 493) = 1.93, p > .01; t(114) = The two items that loaded on the stability of
.35, p > .01, respectively. However, under both offense factor (see Table 2) were submitted to a 2
no contact and minimal contactconditions females x 2 x 3 x 2 x 2 MANOVA, which yielded a main
found scenarios involving male victims and male effect of degree of contactI F(4,2470) = 10.38, p c
perpetrators to be more serious than those involv- .001, q2= .02 The univariate analyses for the item
ing male vidims and female perpetrators, 4101) "perpetrator will likely engage in this type of be-
= 3.80, p < .001; t(109) = 4.91, p < .001, respec- havior in the future" was not signifhnt, F(2,1236)
tively. As shown in the top, right panel of Figure = 1.29, p > .01. However, a sipficant univariate
1, female participants considered moderatecon- main effect for the second item suggested that it
tact scenarios involving female victims and male was considered more probable that perpetrators
perpetrators to be more serious than those involv- did "this kind of thing to the victim all the time"
ing female victims and female perpetrators, t(94) when no touch (M = 2.84, SD = .91) or minimal
= 3.08, p c .01. However, females evaluating mod- contact (M = 2.83, SD = .86) rather than moderate
erate-contact scenarios did not differentiate the contact (M = 2.51, SD = .95) was involved, F(2,
seriousness of the offense based on the 1236) = 16.70, p < .001, q2 = .03.A Tukey's HSD
perpetrator's sex when the victim was male, t(94) test indicated that the no-contact and minimal-
= .02, p > .01. contact means did not differ from each other, but
As shown in the bottom row of panels of Fig- both differed from the moderate- contact mean,
ure 1, male participants evaluating scenarios in- p c .001. This finding, in addition to the afore-
volving female victims within either no contact, mentioned finding regarding the causal role of
minimal contact, or moderate contactscenarios did personality, suggests that harassment involving
not differentiate the seriousness of the offense moderate contact, such as a touch on the shoul-
based on the perpetrator's sex, YS9) = .14, p > .01; der, are perceived to be less common that those
t(120) = 1.37, p > .01; t(101) = .30,p > .01, respec- that involve more innocuous forms of physical
tively. However, male participants found sce- contact.
narios involving male victims and male perpetra-
tors under all three degrees of contact to be more Summary of Results
offensive than those involving female perpetra- Male and female participants evaluating no-
tors, t(106) = 4.51, p < .001; 4109) = 6.38, p < .001; contact or minimalantact scenarios found the ha-
t(100) = 7.91, p < ,001,respectively. rassment of males by males to be more offensive
The two items that loaded on the Causal At- than the harassment of males by kmales, but did
tribution factor (see Table 1) were averaged to not differentiate the seriousness of the harassment
form a composite variable, wherem higher num- of females on the basis of the perpetratois sex.
bers correspond to a greater causal role of per- This same pattern held for male participantswalu-
sonality. The composite variable was submitted ating moderate contact scenarios. A different pat-
to a 2 x 2 x 3 x 2 x- 2 ANOVA. Main effects of - tern of results emerged, however, when female
perpetrator qx, F(1,1244) = 2262, p < .&v = participants evaluated scenarios involving mod-
.02, and degree of contact, F(2 1244) = 10.41, p < erate contact. Here, female participants did not
.001,q2 = .02, were obtained. P e d t y was at- differentiate the seriousness of the harassment of
tributed a greater causal role when the perpetra- male victims on the basis of perpetrator sex but,
tor was a female (M = 3.56, SD = .79) rather than instead -and differing from the other condi-
a male (M = 3.34, SD = 31). Additionally, person- tions- found the harassment of females by males
ality attributions were similar under no touch (M to be more offensive than the harassment of fe-
= 3.53, SD = .80) and minimal touch (M = 3.53, SD malesbyfemdes.
Innocent Fliiting or Sexual Harrasment? 54
When the scenarios involved a moderate de- the conditions we examined. A power differen-
gree of contact the perpetrator's behaviors were tial between perpetrator and victim has been
attributed to the perpetrator's and victim's per- shown to contribute to perceptions of sexual ha-
sonalities to a greater degree than when no con- rassment (Franke, 1997). In fact, a meta-analysis
tact or minimalcontact was involved. Interactions by Blumenthal(1998) revealed status effects to be
ipvolving,moder~tecontact were also perceived generallyk g e r than sex-differenceeffects in judg-
to be less likely to recur with the same victim. ments of sexual harassment. B&d on these re-
Attributions to personality were more likely sults Blumenthal argued that perhaps the status
when female rather than male perpetrators were differences between perpetrator and victim
involved. Furthermore, potentially harassing be- should be given greater attention relative to sex
haviors that occurred between equal status peers differences in perceptions of sexual harassment.
were considered to be less serious than between Blumenthal also noted however, and we agree,
bosses and their subordinates. that finding small rather than large gender dif-
ferences in perceptions of sexual harassment does
Discussion not completely undermine the use of the :reason-
able woman standard as a criterion for deciding
In this study, we examined working adults' sexual harassment cases. Small statistical effects
attitudes regarding ambiguous workplace behav- can have very important consequences (Hahhan
iors that may be considered sexual harassment. & Rosenthal, 2000; Rosenthal, 1986) and, there-
The dilemma of identifying and reporting sexual fore, should not be dismissed as irrelevant or un-
harassment is partly due to the ambiguity of the important Moreover, strategic interference theory
comments and behavior expressed by employees. (see Buss, 1989; 2001) suggests compelling reasons
Assessing employee attitudes toward sexual ha- for which men and women may react to sexual
rassment is important for several reasons. First, attention and harassment at work differently.
the experimental literature on sexual harassment Our results regarding differences between
has relied almost exclusively on convenience men and women in terms of the perceived seri-
samples of undergraduates with little work expe- ousness of sexual harassment are complex, yet
rience and whose attitudes may not generalize to meaningful (see Figure 1). Under all three contact
a broader population (Lengnick-Hall, 1995). Sec- conditions (no contact, minimal, and moderate
ond, individuals' attitudes and beliefs regarding contact), males' perceptions of female victimiza-
what constitutes sexual harassment may contrii tion were not influenced by the sex of the perpe-
ute to their responses (sympathy, outrage, casual trator. In other words, males perceived that fe-
disinterest, or humor) to their own as well as oth- males would respond similarly to harassment re-
ers' experiences of victimization. Third, although gardless of whether it came from a man or a
the use of scenarios in sexual harassment research woman. These perceptions mirror what female
has been criticized (Lengnick-Hall), scenario-based participants actually reported within conditions
studieshave made many meaningful contributions involving no or minimalcontad. However, when
to our understanding of the variables that may contact was moderate (touch on the knee) females
operate in contexts outside of the laboratory considered harassment of a female by a male per-
(Moyer & Nath, 1998; Sheffey & Tindale, 1992; petrator to be more serious than that by a female
Tatf?,1993). Moreover, we believe that scenario- perpetrator -a perception that male participants
based research may be useful for demonstrating did not seem to appreciate.
what might happen in the workplace rather than Next, we consider judgments made regard-
what will happen (Mook, 1983). ing sexual harassment directed toward males.
. Our participants considered potentially ha- Under all three contact conditions, male partici-
rassing behaviors communicated by a boss to a pants considered the harassment of men by men
subordinate to be more serious than when com- to be more serious than the harassment of men
municated by one peer to another. That this main by women. In fact, they considered the harass-
effect was not qualified by any of the other vari- ment of a man by a man, when it involved mod-
ables examined within our study attests to its erate contact (a touch on the shoulder), to be more
importance. In other words, boss-to-subordinate serious (M = 3.53) than the same moderate-con-
harassment was considered more serious than tact harassment directed by a man toward a
coworker-to-coworker harassment under all of woman (M = 3.06). In contrast, whether females'
55 Innocent Flirting or Sexual Harrment?
differentiated the severity of the harassment di- narios failed to capture some important compo-
rected toward males in terms of the sex of the nents of the phenomenology of sexualharassment,
perpetrator varied depending on the degree of ss it is experienced in the workplace.
contact involved. When no contact or minimal Our results suggest that men's and women's
contact was involved, females' judgements of ha- attitudes toward sexual harassment contain subtle
rassment involving male victims were similar to nuances that reflect the perpetrator's and victim's
those of males, the acts perpetrated by males be- sex, as well as the degree of contact involved (see
ing considered more serious. However, when aIso Gutek, 1995). This study examined attitudes
evaluatingmoderabxontad scenariosfemale par- toward ambiguousworkplace behaviors best char-
ticipants perceived the sexual harassment of male acterized as mild to moderate in terms of their
victims to be siniilarly serious regardless of the offensiveness. We believe that these kinds of be-
sex of the perpetrator. Thus, men appear to be- haviors warrant attention because if unattended
lieve that sexual attention at work directed to- to (e.g., Swim & Hyers, 1999) they may persist
-E<omenba male by a female is less serious (M = 2.333
ward - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
- d d f P M m -
o (M = 3.13), and they believed that 2002). Assessments of individuals' attitudes to-
sexual attention directed toward a male by an- ward relatively mild and ambiguous workplace
other male was more serious(M = 3.53) than women behaviors complement the research on more seri-
did (M = 3.13). Differences m perception like these ous forms of harassment (Fitzgerald et al., 1988;
may have both sacial and legal implications. Franke, 1997). Although there are valid reasons
We also examined participants' causal attri- to focus on the more pernicious forms of harass-
butions. Our results suggest that various ment (e.g., their more serious psychological and
attributional judgments are influenced by the de- health consequences to the victim, legal ramifica-
gree of physical contact involved in the interac- tions, cost), more subtle forms are likely to affect
tion. Participants considered interactions involv- a much larger number of individuals (see Swim et
ing no contact and minimal contact, in compari- al., 201). Therefore, attention to subtle forms of
son to interactions involving moderate contact, sexual harassment or behaviors precursors of
to be more due to the personalities of the perpe- sexual harassment is warranted.
trator and victim, and more likely to recur with The EEOC guidelines for sexual harassment
the same victim. Together, these attributions may stipulate that "the totality of the circumstance"
reflect the belief that flirtatious commenk, either will be examined "on a case by case basis." These
alone or accompanied by an ambiguous touch, are tenets suggest a recognition by hvmakers that
more common in the workplace than interactions the meaning of a behavior lies not in the objective
involvingmore clearly sexually motivated contact. behavior itself but in the much larger and more
Several limitations to our research should be complex psychological and interpersonal context.
noted. Our research design did not include con- Sexual harassment education programs may be
ditions in which a subordinate barassehhis/hcx - ~ - 8 e w e €tltese*tsasweE-- l ~
K~thoUghGZKm of harassment may be
more rare than other forms of sexual harassment, References
an examination of working adults' attitudes to-
ward such interactions may prove to be a fruitful Asch, S. E. (1956). Studies of independence and con-
avenue for future research. Also, our scenarios formity: A minority of one against a unanimous
did not provide much contextual information re- majority. PsychologicalMonographs, 70,l-70.
garding the organizational setting of the scenario Abelson,R (2001, June10).Men are daimmg harass-
(Fitzgerald, Drasgow, Hulin, Gelfand, & Magley, ment by men.The N m York Times, [Online].Avail-
1997). Several studies have shown the harassing . ablg ~~1ytimes.~om/U)01/06/10/busmess/
105AME.hlmr
of women within nontraditional work contexts is
perceived to be less serious th& within traditional Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Larnk, K. (1990). The
influence of individual characteristics and sever-
work environments (Burgess & Borgida, 1997).
ity of harassing behavior on reactions to sexual
Moreover, our scenarios described only a single harassment Sex Roles, 22,305325.
interaction between the perpetrator and victim. Bargh, J. A., &Raymond,P. (1995). The Wve misuseof
As James (1981) points out, "sexual harassment is power: Nonconscious sources of sexual harass-
almost always repetitiveD'(p. 403). Thus, our sce- ment. Journalof Social Issues, 51,85-%.
4
P' D P '1 ~4M?ct= Imqd-d -&I) ' ~ ' m UL-'169 6' V ' V X mal P ~ ~ / U V ? SL4mmm
, 9 "s'~0-s '-v'VFL '3*LIOSLQg "a'1*-of -q yl!M 9 ~ 0 S1a ~w '&I) 'm ')I 'avid
'S%-668 'OS 'mola!3hd P O S ~~~~~I 'LT.'mal aY? Pun Sa-S
/o
pun ~ ~ p o s . w d pun01 .aDmAaIar pmad p m p m a a - m w d ~uo~)n@na o w=ofiofuols
aauap~aidpa~taxad 30 q q :snqqs ~ wpay %p -!=a aq? 30 ~o~)=?Idlrr17ua-T =
-S~n1'(986I)*J.x ' a 1 L ~ P "H 'd'a#?Cl "a 'I 30-1 -3- '(6661) 'f '~~ylsl%l-mUT003 19 "B .M'3md
' m z m '011-' ? V ~ & ~ W 'UI-ZSI 2 8 '.wwwl
1muOSDd ?qnd 7ua-T F a S '(1861) 'f 'samf p u y m o ~ / opzun01- a q d y i oayl ~ pue y u ~ a p ~ v
'6U-LU 'OL 'mol0yAd P S Pun h ? ~ Ul FnXa 30 aDwP!DV a U '(8861) '7
-lad40pnunol -a~rpt+~d 30 suqdaruad uo sadAq ma^ ~g'm 'm'xPlo3 "I'~ayje~s"Y\T
*ad 30 a-nw '(9661) 'S 'x 'm "7'W 'ummr~ ' S m "N 'bm "7 'S ' V y S "d '7'ppla%zl!d
'a-6I . '6%-8LS '28
'6 ' m V S flq0y3hd u! suOH3aKl ?uaun3 '/8010y3hd pZZZddv/o vt101'IapOUI W W % ~ FUe
-n@d p x a s 30 B o ~ o q ~ M-(0002) -3' q a i a ~ 30 qsq v :suogque%ioq q u a u 1 ~ ~ 8pnxas q p
.SSaJd JnnaPWV pua qua-w '(L66I) .I'A'WW
:osa!a U13S '(6VI~'l'dd)% F a ~ m PJHmuqlm 19 "m ' p q e "3' W H "d 'M&SBW"7'p~a%q!d
F ~ " H S Y~ W
-a
almnglm
.a.s9h s u ! , -v
pal1dh50 yoo4pua~'(.spa)
~ 'B -Hq .wsarSwodar. :
--
wospallddv pw vna .=m~pv q a = v m
' S M 'LI 'aol0y3kd
P ~ ~ Y ? ~ ~ w ' ~xo' @ o ow~~) O x % " m ' ~ p m m a i q quau~smmyp x a s %qinsean
'29ITSII '6s '~ol0y3hdP P '(~661)'d 'MoS-JU 19 '-1I4 'ma3'.d -7'pp1aS-d
-0sPun h ~ s ~ d P/J m o i .\pnQ w a l u l '6PL-IU '68 S ' alOX XaS
pu13 'UaUIOM %DUIUO qI@!* MaN :SUOlJVAlaSqO - a a q d y i oayl ~ pqua- pnxas rap&-raw
, ? w n a ) , =ow '(0661) 'W 'BA -' 19 "v 'I @% PUB I- a m 30 w g w x a ~ d m utra'(8661) 3'
' V L S 'tx' S ~ S Zv s / o tmuml .YJOM '3'~sn>119'.~x'@d"E'a'dd~"~'73f
qv UaUIOM 30 q m S S e v p n x x p m 'ia~omds '6WG 'O€ 'smMK7 lVn?F
ap-xas 'sogvi xas '(~861)'gp v i o p lg~ "v'a 'ya7n3 -.tpul purr hp .of=d 7@tqord 30 w%-I/srqws
'99I-ISI 'IS 'smsz ~ ~ 4 pm 0 'rap& $0q 3 a l f ~7 u a U I m p m PA!=
p m o 1 .pxeputqs u e u r o qqrn0sea.1
~ ayl r qspeq -lad 30 SUO!-lrrKI '('1002)-1'3' U @ J P f 19 "f 'd 'a03
w d m a u '(~661)'0 'W 'iomro3,o P "v 'a ' w n 3 'En
'LWLPli 'LI 'aol0y3hd P S pallddv -6IZ 'OI ' m V S U! SU93aUQ?uaun3
pun ~8 w q a ial= 30 w m w ~ = w i w ~ 'saxas q u a a w J m p wn10- ayl ur mop
-9 Pnxas sr a@?*ns MOH '(~66'1)'V *a%a7n3 n~rsuog- PW v q ~ W @ Q'(UIOZ)-W'a'ss"g
's9'1-LVI .LVL-S€L'95
'8 'sdpl~Hrrla21I m r O S u d Pun WS& tmumf 'axre 'mq0y3kd WOS Pun %!lmosfld/o frnuN 7asdn
-po~p v n a ) p m 'rap& 'aStqs pugqaz 30 uog p m ia2m 30 uogmoAa ayl p m a3uiuapal~q3
- ~ ~ ~ \ p n o , L : ~ u r-3~4s ~ :sax= ~ 3ayl -0~ t a~q ? ~~ ~ l~f w'(6861) 3
~ ~'BV'a '=na
%UP(BMa u -(=I) 'v 'd luosrapw ">I '7'aauan3 -u
'6G8 -€9 '€2 'uHalln8 /aol0y2hd P S Pm h!Irnrm-Wd
-618 'VZ '40y3hd PS P ? u m . P k l ut s-aptr i a ~ o ~ [ ~a~a-xas
: d s foqsa?~uauzpadxaq
- ~ u r p w = a p U - P=Y pue'-apur rv- 7ua-w pnxas -&I) 'H gpr%ioa19'-a 'dins
' ~ 4 ~ a0 m3 + ~ n s'(1661) -7'=OX 19 '-M .a'w3 '892-8n 'a 'farrmf ?WS aM03 L
1
-
'ss5w'9Z'~??alln8 -ml I* Q 'Jua-9 IB"=, a? I P 0s aAq noL
-la!~hdws pun h!fmrosad 'laployaq all?30 a h ~ C'('1
I 661) -d-a'-prra v '-a3'ar.w~'v .a'==a
ayl ur w d m p SI :sq jo pwm ayl ur sa- ' L H X 'a'JWV8
-JW a ~ g d ~'(0002) a d '3'V 'JJWI 19'X'V -nH 8 mtrl qua- @nxas JO - M a x d ur
.bP -w J ~ P ~ MJ aOw ??b.-J= v:p*
- o ~ d 0 1 0 ~ 3 ~ d ~ ~a Yu )rJtOr ~ ~ I I - A ~ ~ ~ P-uqs U m o aIqmmmai
~ a u '(8661) -v-1'ppuaumlg
-ueayl qv ppquasard um!sodds -uoF)nIonap m zwns 'oz 'fi~wwMJ
'sa3uanbasuoa 'uopqexa n a u :sari p m gar* ' -- UWOM /O k8qq3hd jmUI 30 qua- PXas
'(JwP)u~pro3 .>I-v UI.w@3Ja~ = Q U O ~ PD v aUL '(%6'1) 'X '3'OPPM 19"1'A ' ~ I S W" I 7-1'FPPJW
% ~ l7!=p30 d u o g v a u '(ZOOZ)'X 'V 'uop1w 'SOOI
'G69-069 L' 366 6' G 'k8010y3hdP O S 8 4 ? p u o ~ ~ dP/ oJ m f
'a010~3hdPS Pun h!~osfld/o 1 - 'syjoys .ra%wnqvsaq- m d d o ~ q a g n 7v 3 ~
30 s a p s pqvpv1% atp 30 aIoi a u :sa!pnqs a u a -*3~ 30 9m033v ~ a ) 8 4 A a dPM A
=YWo~ I ! P P $ 4 ~ ~~0 0 l a'(186'1)l'1'SW~q ~ 3 '(066'1)'X'SW Q MP "V ~~~S 'If2 'Ja)Sfam'%i
57 Innocent Flirting or Sexual Harrment?
Popovich, P. M., Gehlauf, D. N., Jolton,J. A, Everton, what you ask. Journul of Sex ResewZhIZQ,2WZ9T
W.J.,Godinho,RM,Mastrangelo,P.M.,&Somers, Whitley, B. E., &Kite, M.K. (1995). Sex differences in
J. IvL (1996). Physical attractiveness and sexualha- attitudes toward homosexuality: A comment on
rassment Does every picture bell a story or every Oliver and Hyde (1993).Psychdo@ BuUefin, 117,
story draw a picture? Journal of Applied Social Psy- 146-154.
chology, 26,520342. W-, R L., &Hurt,L. E.(2000).How do people evalu-
Pryor, J. B. (1985). The lay person's understanding of ate socialsexual conduct at work? A psycholegal
sexual harassment Sex Roles, 13,273-286. model. Journalof Applied Psychdog, 85,7585.
Rosenkrg,.J,Perlstadt H,,.&Phillips, W. R F. (1993). Wilkerson, J. M. (1999). The impad of p b level wd-
Now that we are here: Discrimination, disparage- prior training on sexual &assment labechg k d
ment, and harassment at work and the experience remedy choice. Journal OfAppliedSocial PsychOlogy,
of women lawyers. Gender & Society, 7,415-433. 29,1605-1623.
Rosenthal, R (1986).Media violence, anantisocialbehav- willians,c.w.,~~~n,~.s.,~Haley,P.R~ &Price,
ior, and the social consequences of small effects. J. R (1995). An attriitional (causald i m d n a l )
Journalof S d Issues, 42,141-154. analysisof ~~ of sexual har-ent Jm-
Ross, L. D., & Nisbett R. E. (1991). The person and the
s i f w t hPertpcfiues O f d psychology. New York:
of Applied Social Psychobgy, =, 1169-1183.
Irmocent FGrthg or Sexual Harrasment? 58
Appendix
Female Perpetrator, Female Victim, Comment
Only, Peer Worker Relationship
Donna and Lisa work at a large organization. Donna
_andLisa hold thi same position in the company. Donna
has worked with Lisafor 3 years. They are both outgo-
ing individuals and are well liked by others in the wm-
puny. They interact directly with one another approxi-
mately 5 hours per week Donna and Lisa have never
socialized outside of company functions. They have a
good working relationship, and haw not had any seri-
ous conflicts. Last week a@ a meeting, Donna said to
Lisa, "You Zook .aery attractive in that suit. You should
wear it'niore often."
Male Perpetrator, Male Victim, Comment with
Shoulder Touch, Peer Worker Relationship