This article examines the effects of participant gender, researcher gender, and group gender composition (ratio of women to men) on individual judgments about an ambiguous, hypothetical, sexual harassment grievance. The participants (116 men and 113 women) served on five-person mock hearing boards. A main effect for participant gender was found (p < .01), with significantly more women (58.4%) making affirmative sexual harassment judgments than men (35.3%). A significant three-way interaction (p < .01) revealed that, when led by male researchers, men in groups where they were the numerical minority (3 women/2 men) made significantly lower ratings, indicating less belief that sexual harassment had occurred (M = 2.83), than those men in groups where they were in the majority (2 women/3 men, M = 4.87; 4 men/1 woman, M = 4.88). Ingroup and outgroup behavior observed by Rogers, Hennigan, Bowman, and Miller (1984) is proposed as a possible explanation for these results.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AbramsD.ThomasJ.HoggM. A. (1990). Numerical distinctiveness, social identity and gender salience. British Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 87–92.
2.
AdamsJ. W.KottkeJ. L.PadgittJ. S. (1983). Sexual harassment of university students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 484–490.
3.
AllportG. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
4.
BairdC. L.BenskoN. L.BellP. A.VineyW.WoodyW. D. (1995). Gender influence on perceptions of hostile environment sexual harassment. Psychological Reports, 77, 70–82.
5.
BakerD. D.TerpstraD. E.LarntzK. (1990). The influence of individual characteristics and severity of harassing behavior on reactions to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 22, 305–325.
6.
BensonD. J.ThomsonG. E. (1982). Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confidence of authority relations, sexual interest and gender stratification. Social Problems, 29, 236–251.
7.
BermanP. W.CooperP.MansfieldP.ShieldsS.AbplanalpJ. (1975). Sex differences in attraction to infants: When do they occur? Sex Roles, 1, 311–318.
8.
BurianB. K.YanicoB. J.GarciaL. (1998). Was it sexual harassment? Case evidence related to students' judgments. Manuscript in preparation.
9.
BursikK. (1992). Perceptions of sexual harassment in an academic context. Sex Roles, 27, 401–412.
10.
CastellowW. A.WuenschK. L.MooreC. H. (1990). Effects of physical attractiveness of the plaintiff and defendant in sexual harassment judgments. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 5, 547–562.
11.
CotaA. A.DionK. L. (1986). Salience of gender and sex composition of ad-hoc groups: An experimental test of distinctiveness theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 770–776.
12.
CraigJ. M.SherifC. W. (1986). The effectiveness of men and women in problem-solving groups as a function of group gender composition. Sex Roles, 14, 453–466.
13.
DavisK.NewstromJ. W. (1985). Human behavior at work: Organizational behavior. New York: McGraw-Hill.
14.
EtaughC.HoutlerB. D.PtasnikP. (1988). Evaluating competence of women and men: Effects of experimenter gender and group gender composition. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 191–200.
15.
FitzgeraldL. F.OrmerodA. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281–294.
16.
FitzgeraldL. F.ShullmanS.BaileyN.RichardsM.SweckerJ.GoldY.OrmerodM.WeitzmanL. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152–175.
17.
GutekB. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace: The impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men, and organizations. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
18.
GutekB. A.MoraschB.CohenA. G. (1983). Interpreting social–sexual behavior in a work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30–48.
19.
HartnettJ. J.RobinsonD.SinghB. (1989). Perceptions of males and females toward sexual harassment and acquiescence. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 4, 291–298.
20.
HunterC.McClellandK. (1991). Honoring accounts for sexual harassment: A factorial survey analysis. Sex Roles, 24, 725–751.
21.
JonesT. S.RemlandM. S. (1992). Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 27, 121–142.
22.
KenigS.RyanJ. (1986). Sex differences in levels of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campus. Sex Roles, 15, 535–549.
23.
LeechM. J. (1986). Employment termination and related issues in the workplace. Chicago: Illinois Institute for Continuing Legal Education.
24.
LewinK. (1935). Psycho-sociological problems of a minority group. Character and Personality, 3, 175–187.
25.
LoredoC.ReidA.DeauxK. (1995). Judgments and definitions of sexual harassment by high school students. Sex Roles, 32, 29–45.
26.
MaihoffN.ForestL. (1983). Sexual harassment in higher education: An assessment study. Journal of the National Association for Women Deans, Administrators, and Counselors, 46, 3–8.
27.
MalovichN. J.StakeJ. E. (1990). Sexual harassment on campus: Individual differences in attitudes and beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 63–81.
28.
MazerD. B.PercivalE. F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The relationships among perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of sexual harassment in university students. Sex Roles, 20, 135–147.
29.
MooreC. H.WuenschK. L.HedgesR. M.CastellowW. A. (1994). The effects of physical attractiveness and social desirability on judgments regarding a sexual harassment case. Journal of Social Behavior and Personality, 9, 715–730.
30.
ReillyT.CarpenterS.DullV.BartlettK. (1982). The factorial survey: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 99–110.
31.
RogersM.HenniganK.BowmanC.MillerN. (1984). Intergroup acceptance in classroom and playground settings. In MillerN.BrewerM. B. (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegregation. New York: Academic Press.
32.
RubleD. N.HigginsE. T. (1976). Effects of group sex composition on self-presentation and sex-typing. Journal of Social Issues, 32, 125–132.
33.
ShomerR. W.CentersR. (1970). Differences in attitudinal responses under conditions of implicitly manipulated group salience. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 15, 125–132.
34.
SummersR. J. (1991). Determinants of judgments of and responses to a complaint of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 25, 379–391.
35.
TajfelH. (1982). Social psychology of intergroup relations. Annual, Review of Psychology, 33, 1–39.
36.
TerpstraD. E.BakerD. D. (1988). Outcomes of sexual harassment charges. Academy of Management Journal, 31, 185–194.
37.
TerpstraD. E.BakerD. D. (1992). Outcomes of federal court decisions on sexual harassment. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 181–190.
38.
ToderN. L. (1980). The effect of the sexual composition of a group on discrimination against women and sex-role attitudes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 5, 292–310.
39.
United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1980, November 10). Final amendment to guidelines on discrimination because of sex under Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended (29 CFR Chapter XIV, Part 1604.11). Federal Register, 45, 219.
40.
United States Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
41.
WilderD. A.AllenV. L. (1978). Group membership and preference for information about others. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 4, 106–110.
42.
WilliamsC. W.BrownR. S.Lees-HaleyP. R.PriceJ. R. (1995). An attributional (causal dimensional) analysis of perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 25, 1169–1183.
43.
WilsonK. R.KrausL. A. (1983). Sexual harassment in the university. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 219–224.
