Abstract
Social exchange theory was used to explain sexual harassment interactions in terms of perceived or actual inequities in incurred costs or rewards between targets and perpetrators. A factorial experiment was conducted in which the effects of severity of harassment, target response, target gender, and rater gender on perceptions of harassment, perpetrator appropriateness and target appropriateness and suggested responses to harassment were examined. Ninety-four male and 116 female students from two eastern universities served as subjects. The sample was approximately 90% Caucasian and was composed of traditional (18–22-year-old) undergraduates. Results indicated that all independent variables affected perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment situations.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Adams, J. W., Kottke, J. L., & Padgitt, J. S. (1983). Sexual harassment of university students. Journal of College Student Personnel, 24, 484–490.
Allen, M. J., Armstrong, C. A., Clarin, A. A., & Velasquez, J. G. (1988). Severity and gender effects on ratings of sexual harassment. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 300 737.
Benson, D. J., & Thomson, G. E. (1982). Sexual harassment on a university campus: The confluence of authority relations, sexual interest, and gender stratification. Social Problems, 29, 236–251.
Bingham, S. G., & Burleson, B. (1989). Multiple effects of messages with multiple goals: Some perceived outcomes of responses to sexual harassment. Human Communication Research, 16, 184–216.
Carducci, B. J. (1987). Affective and attributional reactions to sexual harassment as determined by outcome. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 282 118.
Dzeich, B., & Weiner, L. (1984). The lecherous professor: Sexual harassment on campus. Boston: Beacon.
Fisher, G. M., Wine, J. D., & Caplan, P. J. (1987, June). Sexual harassment among staff in a Canadian academic work setting. Paper presented at the Canadian Psychological Association convention, Vancouver, BC.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Hesson-McInnis, M. (1989). The dimensions of sexual harassment: A structural analysis. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 35, 309–326.
Havemann, J. (1988, June 30). 47% of femal civil servents report sexual harassment. The Washington Post, p. 1.
Hazzard, T. (1989). Sexual harassment: What's good for the goose is good for the gander. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 310 981.
Jones, T. S., 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.
Kenig, S., & Ryan, J. (1986). Sex differences in level of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campus. Sex Roles, 15, 535–549.
Konrad, A. M., & Gutek, B. A. (1986). Impact of work experiences on attitudes toward sexual harassment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 422–438.
Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. (1982). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case study. Signs, 8, 296–319.
Mazer, D. B., & Percival, E. F. (1989). Students' experiences of sexual harassment at a small university. Sex Roles, 20, 1–22.
Merit Systems Protection Board (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? Washington DC: Government Printing Office.
Popovich, P. M., Licata, B. J., Nokovich, D., Martelli, T., & Zoloty, S. (1986). Assessing the incidence and perceptions of sexual harassment behaviors among American undergraduates. Journal of Psychology, 120, 387–396.
Priest, R. F., & Fullerton, T. (1985). Psychometric and theoretical issues in the study of sexual harassment. Eric Document Reproduction No. ED 266 359.
Pryor, J. B. (1985). The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 13, 273–286.
Reilly, M. E., Lott, B., & Galloghy, S. M. (1986). Sexual harassment of university students. Sex Roles, 15, 333–358.
Reilly, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K. (1982). The factorial survey: An approach to defining sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 99–109.
Remland, M. R., & Jones, T. S. (1985). Sex differences, communication consistency, and judgments of sexual harassment in a performance appraisal interview. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 156–176.
Roloff, M. (1981). Interpersonal communication: A social exchange approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rossi, P. H., & Weber-Burdin, E. (1983). Sexual harassment on campus. Social Science Research, 12, 131–158.
Sigal, J., Gibbs, M., Belford, S., Ronan, S., & Gervasio, A. (1987). Sexual harassment on three college campuses. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 282 118.
Tangri, S. S., Burt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 33–54.
Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1987). A hierarchy of sexual harassment. Journal of Psychology, 121, 599–605.
Till, F. J. (1980). Sexual harassment: A report on the sexual harassment of students. Washington, DC: National Advisory Council on Women's Educational Programs.
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.
Weber-Burdin, E., & Rossi, P. H. (1982). Defining sexual harassment on campus: A replication and extension. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 111–120.
York, K. M. (1989). Defining sexual harassment in workplaces: A policy capturing approach. Academy of Management Journal, 32, 830–850.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jones, T.S., Remland, M.S. Sources of variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual harassment. Sex Roles 27, 121–142 (1992). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290013
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00290013