The purpose of this study was to investigate the incidence of sexual harassment in academia. 397 faculty, staff, and administrators representing a stratified random sample were sent a research packet via campus mail. The packet contained a cover letter requesting their voluntary participation, and the materials for a survey on coworker behavior. The data indicated that 20% of the sample had experienced sexual harassment. The results also indicated that males and females differed in their perceptions over how to stop sexually harassing behavior effectively. Specifically, female compared to male respondents favored more passive actions to arrest the unwanted behavior. The results also showed that females compared to males reported more gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention.
In 1992, eight female students from the University of New Hampshire charged J. Donald Silva, a writing and communications professor, with sexual harassment (WAGE, 1993). The charge was filed after Dr. Silva made in-class comments that the students believed to be a form of sexual harassment. As a result of his comments, Dr. Silva was suspended from his teaching position. In response, Dr. Silva took legal action and successfully returned to his teaching position two years later (Honan, 1994; UNH, 1993-94). Although cases of sexual harassment in academia are becoming more frequent, the majority of sexual harassment research up to this point has been conducted on populations outside academia (e.g., Gutek, 1985; Murrell, Olson, & Frieze, 1995).
The issue of sexual harassment in the workplace and the associated impacts on the target of the harassment has been examined in a number of studies (e.g., Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Murrell et al., 1995). The results have indicated that 19-60% of the women sampled reported experiencing some form of sexual harassment by coworkers (e.g., Department of Defense, 1995; Fitzgerald et al., 1988). Research has indicated clearly that sexual harassment in the corporate workplace has had a negative impact on its victims. For example, Fitzgerald et al. (1988) produced data revealing that when the sexual harassment is experienced as intense and frequent, the victim reported feeling depressed, anxious, and exhibited physical problems.
Adding to the effects of repeated harassment on women is the tendency for third party observers to dismiss the report of sexual harassment (Fitzgerald, Swan, & Fischer, 1995). By not believing or adequately responding to sexual harassment complaints brought by women, the American public, in essence, often denies that sexual harassment has ever taken place. For example, when Anita Hill alleged that Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas sexually harassed her years earlier, her credibility came into question as a number of media-conducted polls focused on whether or not individuals believed Anita Hill. Although Ms. Hill is a highly respected woman, the majority of individuals responding indicated they did not believe her claim that she had been sexually harassed by Clarence Thomas (Fitzgerald et al., 1995). Not only is the American public often likely to disbelieve accusations of sexual harassment, but the American public is quick to blame women for failing to report harassment as soon as it happens (Fitzgerald et al., 1995). For example, one of the factors used to justify the public’s blame of Anita Hill was her failure to file a sexual harassment complaint against Clarence Thomas when the incident allegedly occurred. The attitude exhibited by the American public suggests a lack of sensitivity to the price women pay for reporting harassment. No matter how well-respected a woman happens to be, if she fails to report sexual harassment – or even when she does – her status as a “respectable woman” in the community generally suffers.
The reaction of the American public to Anita Hill sent a strong message to women with regard to reporting sexual harassment. Research suggests that most women avoid disclosing harassment for fear of losing their jobs and sabotaging their careers. For example, Gutek (1985) reported that 60% of the women in her sample who were sexually harassed, but chose not to report the incident(s), believed they would be blamed for the incident if they filed a formal complaint. Interestingly, another 60% of the women in her sample believed reporting sexual harassment would be ineffective--primarily because they believed nothing would be done to correct the problem. Studies investigating victims of sexual harassment continually find that victims are afraid of being humiliated, not deemed credible, and hurting their chances of professional advancement in their company or career (e.g., Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Gutek, 1985).
Another common criticism of women who claim to be victims of sexual harassment is often voiced thus: “Why didn’t she just tell him [her harasser] to stop?” In fact, victims of sexual harassment often do tell their harassers to stop, but their efforts usually do not reduce or terminate the harassing behavior (e.g., Fiske & Glick, 1995; Kidder, Lafleur, & Wells, 1995). For example, one victim of sexual harassment at the University of New Hampshire reported:
He asked me out four times and I refused. I didn’t think it was right to date my supervisor and I told him so. He kept telling me about furniture that he was buying to redecorate his apartment. He asked me to help him pick out furniture for his bedroom. He wanted something masculine but sexy, so I knew what he was hinting at. I don’t want to alienate him; he’s my supervisor after all. He does my performance evaluation. (SHARP, 1994)
In addition, victims’ refusals have often been reported to spur further harassment or threats of punishment from the harasser, which, in turn, tends to further compound negative impacts on the victim (e.g., Fiske & Glick, 1995; Fitzgerald et al., 1995; Kidder et al., 1995). In the highly publicized case, Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth (1998), recent research was submitted to the Supreme Court indicating that the degree of psychological damage experienced by female victims of sexual harassment was the same, regardless of subsequent punishment for the harasser.
Additionally, research on sexual harassment indicates that women are much more likely to be victimized than men (e.g., Deaux, 1995; Gutek, 1985). For example, in 1987, the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board conducted a survey of federal workers. The results indicated that, of those surveyed, 42% of the women compared to 14% of the men reported experiencing sexual harassment (Anonymous, 1991).
Although men do not experience sexual harassment as frequently as women, the number of males reporting sexual harassment is increasing. For example, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has reported a steady increase in the number of men filing sexual harassment claims. Although the report does not separate the number of sexual harassment complaints of males filed against females or other males, the number of sexual harassment claims filed by men increased from 9.1% to a high of 13.6% from 1992 to 2000, respectively (EEOC, 2000). Other research indicates that 15-30% of men working in corporate America experience some form of sexual harassment (Clay, 1993). For example, in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1997) Joseph Oncale, an oil rig worker for Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., filed a sexual harassment lawsuit in 1991. In his lawsuit, Mr. Oncale alleged that several coworkers behaved inappropriately toward him, for example, they sexually assaulted, battered, and touched him. When Mr. Oncale reported the incidents to two supervisors, he was threatened with rape. Additionally, in EEOC v. Domino’s Pizza Inc., a male employee filed a sexual harassment lawsuit against his female supervisor due to unwanted physical contact. In this instance, the supervisor continually touched him even after he told her to stop and informed him she loved him.
Nevertheless, the number of sexual harassment complaints filed by men constitutes only a small percentage of the total number of sexual harassment complaints filed each year. Although sexual harassment is experienced by working men, the laws and guidelines are often written as if sexual harassment were a crime perpetuated solely by men toward women (Clay, 1993) – largely because this has historically been understood to be the nature of the problem, and continues to be evidenced disproportionately as such even to this day. Still, as more women achieve positions of power in corporate America, the potential increases for more men to experience sexual harassment over the coming years. Indeed, the sexual harassment statistics reported by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission offer some support for this hypothesis (EEOC, 2000).
While the incidence of sexual harassment in the corporate workplace has begun receiving more attention, up to now the incidence of sexual harassment in the academic workplace has been virtually ignored. The purpose of this investigation is twofold: (a) to examine the incidence of sexual harassment in an academic setting, that is, among employees at Valdosta State University, and (b) to examine perceptions toward sexual harassment among individuals who have and have not been sexually harassed.
The participants in this study were 397 faculty, staff, and administrators from Valdosta State University. Participants selected for the study represented a stratified random sample. We obtained a list of faculty, staff, and administrators employed by Valdosta State University from the office of Information Technology. From this list, faculty, staff, and administrators were randomly chosen to reflect the numerical composition of each group. Out of the 397 surveys mailed to faculty, staff, and administrators, 95 were returned representing a 24% response rate (32 males and 63 females). The response rate for our survey is consistent with prior survey research on this very sensitive issue (Collins & Blodgett, 1981; Crull, 1979) and will be considered further in the discussion.
Participants ranged in age from 20–64 with a mean age of 45 years. Of the 95 surveys returned, 26.3% were from faculty, 25.3% were from administrators, 46.3% were from staff, and 2.1% did not report this information. The ethnic composition of the sample was 83.2% White, 14.7% African American, 1.1% Hispanic, and 1.1% Asian. Participants had been employed by Valdosta State University from less than one year, to almost 30 years, with an overall average of 7.25 years of university employment. All participants were treated in accordance with the ethical guidelines of the American Psychological Association (American Psychological Association, 1992).
Participants were asked to complete a 12 item questionnaire that was drawn from the Department of Defense’s (1995) Sexual Harassment Survey (see Appendix A). The questionnaire was designed to assess an individual’s perceptions of the effectiveness of various anti-sexual harassment policies. For example, “Reporting the behavior to the person(s)’ supervisor or others in higher positions of authority,” “Asking or telling the person(s) to stop,” and “Ignoring the behavior.” Participants responded to each item on a five point scale from (1) Makes It Worse, (2) Not Effective , (3) Somewhat Effective, (4) Effective, (5) Very Effective. The reliability (internal consistency) for the present sample was .79 – which is a strong indication that the items in the instrument are indeed measuring the construct of anti-sexual harassment policies.
Participants also completed the 20 item Sexual Experience Questionnaire1 (Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1985; Fitzgerald et al., 1988) that is designed to assess the incidence and prevalence of sexual harassment in the workplace. This instrument also examines the behavioral and psychological experience of gender-related behavior that can be perceived as offensive. The 20 items form three subscales: Gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. The three subscales of the Sexual Experience Questionnaire parallel the legal concepts of hostile environment (gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention) and quid pro quo (sexual coercion). The reliability (internal consistency) of the three subscales has been reported to range from .41 to .92 (Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1985; Fitzgerald et al., 1988) and the reliability of the total Sexual Experience Questionnaire ranges from .78 to .88. The overall reliability of the Sexual Experience Questionnaire for the present sample was .78. The reliability for the Unwanted Sexual Attention subscale was .83, and was .62 for the Gender Harassment subscale. The relative strength of these measures assures us that the items in the Unwanted Sexual Attention subscale and the Gender Harassment subscale are indeed measuring the intended constructs. The reliability for the Sexual Coercion subscale could not be computed due to many items having zero variance.
After obtaining approval from the Institutional Review Board for Use of Human Subjects, we began the process of data collection by sending a large envelope containing a cover letter, two informed consent forms, the survey instrument, and a pre-addressed stamped business-size white envelope through campus mail to the administrators, faculty, and staff randomly selected for the survey. The cover letter explained the purpose of the study and provided instructions for the return of the survey. For example, respondents were told to return the completed survey anonymously via regular mail by placing the survey in the pre-addressed stamped envelope. We employed this method of return because it affords greater respondent anonymity – which we believed was especially important given the sensitive nature of the survey. The envelope also contained two informed consent forms. Respondents were instructed to sign both forms and to keep one copy for their personal records. They were instructed to send the second signed informed consent form via campus mail to the first author. By following these two procedures, we could ensure a greater degree of privacy and anonymity for participants’ responses. At the conclusion of the study, we distributed a campus wide e-mail signaling its completion and we also provided information about how to obtain access to the results.
We used an alpha level of .05 to examine the significance level of all statistical tests, however we also interpreted alpha levels between .05 and .10 as marginally significant. In addition, we calculated the effect size r (Rosenthal, 1991) in order determine the magnitude with which each effect could be attributed. An effect size enables one to examine the magnitude of the relationship between variables, or, in other words, the amount of variance one variable explains in the other. Cohen (1969) has suggested that an effect size from .00-.30 is a small effect, .40-.60 a medium effect, and .70-1.00 a large effect.
A frequency analysis on the questionnaire item that asked participants if they had experienced sexual harassment by coworkers in the past 24 months indicated that twenty percent had been sexually harassed. Of the 20% reporting they had been sexually harassed, 63% indicated they had been sexually harassed once or twice, 26.3% indicated sometimes, 5.2% indicated often, and 5.2% indicated many times. Also, of those indicating that they had been sexually harassed, 90 percent were female and 10 percent were male. The ethnicity of the males indicating that they had experienced sexual harassment was 100% White. Whereas, the ethnicity of the females indicating they had experienced sexual harassment was 88.2% White and 11.8% African American. The experience of sexual harassment was also a function of job description. Of those indicating sexual harassment, 42.1% were staff, 26.3% were faculty, and 26.3% were administrators.
We conducted one-way analyses of variance (ANOVAs) on participants’ responses to the 12-item Department of Defense Sexual Harassment Survey. As a result, five significant or marginally significant sex differences emerged. First, female participants believed that ignoring the sexually harassing behavior was a more effective method of terminating the sexual harassment (M = 2.81, SD = 0.96) than did male participants (M = 2.45, SD = 1.03) [F (1, 90) = 2.74, p = .10 (r = .17)]. Second, female participants believed that avoiding the harasser was a more effective method of ending sexual harassment (M = 3.16; SD = 0.97) than did male participants (M = 2.78; SD = 0.83) [F (1, 93) = 3.52, p = .06 (r = .19)]. Third, male participants believed that filing a formal complaint would be more effective at stopping sexual harassment (M = 4.59, SD = 0.61) than did female participants (M = 4.06, SD = 1.10) [F (1, 92) = 6.36, p < .05 (r = .25)]. Fourth, male participants believed that threatening to tell the person’s spouse would be more effective at intervening against sexual harassment (M = 4.03, SD = 1.18) than did female participants (M = 3.14, SD = 1.15) [F (1, 93) = 12.49, p < .00 (r = .34)]. Fifth, male participants believed that threatening to tell one’s own spouse would be more effective at stopping sexual harassment (M = 3.55, SD = 1.12) than did female participants (M = 3.02, SD = 1.20) [F (1, 90) = 4.20, p < .05 (r = .21)]. There were no additional significant effects, F s (1, 90) ( 1.72, p s > .05 (r s ( .14).
One-way ANOVAs were calculated on participants’ scores on the three subscales of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire. There was a marginally significant effect for the Gender Harassment subscale, F (1, 93) = 3.09, p = .081 (r = .18). In general, female participants reported more gender harassment (M = 2.17, SD = 2.72) than male participants (M = 1.28, SD = 1.28). There was a marginally significant effect for the Unwanted Sexual Attention subscale, F (1, 93) = 3.18, p = .078 (r = .18). In general, female participants reported more unwanted sexual attention (M = 1.17, SD = 2.45) compared to male participants (M = 0.38, SD = 0.91). There was no difference in the experience of sexual coercion between male and female respondents, F (1, 93) = 0.51, p > .05 (r = .07).
One-way ANOVAs were calculated on participants’ scores on the three subscales of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire as a function of their employment capacity (i.e., administrator, faculty, or staff). There were no significant effects, F s (1, 93) ( 0.75, p s > .05 (r s ( .09). There were two nonsignificant trends worth mentioning. First, staff employees reported more Gender Harassment (M = 1.71; SD = 2.46) than administrators (M = 1.71; SD = 2.46) or faculty (M = 1.52; SD = 1.92). Secondly, staff employees reported more Unwanted Sexual Attention (M = 1.14; SD = 2.72) than administrators (M = 0.79; SD = 1.22) or faculty (M = 0.60; SD = 1.44).
The majority of existing research has examined sexual harassment in nonacademic settings, and only recently have social scientists begun treating sexual harassment in academia as an important new area of inquiry. Indeed, because academic settings serve as training grounds for future professionals, harassment in such settings may serve to spread, rather than mitigate, the incidence of harassment in other professional settings. The utility of investigating sexual harassment on campus has at least two broad goals. First, studying sexual harassment will increase understanding of the mechanisms perpetuating sexual harassment. Second, once such mechanisms become better known and understood, there will be greater potential for successful endeavors aimed at controlling the incidence of sexual harassment—both within academia, as well as in the professional working world.
The current investigation offers an initial description of the incidence of harassment among the professional staff of a four year university, as opposed to the more traditional faculty-student emphasis. We believe this distinction creates an opportunity to expand upon these existing studies by examining sexual harassment as a phenomenon that permeates the employee-infrastructure of academia. The study also utilizes scales measuring not only the incidence of harassment, but also the perceptions of the participants of the strategies most likely to be successful at stopping sexual harassment when it does occur. The inclusion of the participants’ perceptions allows us to begin to investigate the relative efficacy of various anti-harassment policies from the victim’s perspective.
The results of this pilot investigation indicated that 20% of the Valdosta State University employees sampled reported experiencing one or more instances where they were sexually harassed by a coworker in the past two years. This 20% included men as victims of sexual harassment. This percentage is consistent with previous research (e.g., Department of Defense, 1995; Fitzgerald et al., 1988).
Strikingly, although 20% reported the subjective belief they were sexually harassed, the Office of Equal Opportunity Programs/Multicultural Affairs at Valdosta State University reported that from 1997 to the present, no faculty, staff, or administrator made any official reports of employee-to-employee sexual harassment. The discrepancy between the survey results and official reports suggests that sexual harassment among Valdosta State University employees is underreported—and might also serve to demonstrate that official anti-harassment strategies and policies are at least perceived as being utterly useless to the victims of sexual harassment. Indeed, this finding also supports prior research suggesting that sexual harassment, in general, is an underreported occurrence (e.g., Gutek, 1985)
In addition, this study indicates that men and women have significantly different perceptions of the effectiveness of various actions that might be taken to prevent or terminate sexual harassment. Male participants believed filing a formal complaint, threatening to tell the harasser’s spouse, and threatening to tell one’s own spouse would be more effective at stopping the harassing behavior than did female participants. While, these results cannot be compared to the Department of Defense’s (1995) survey, because they reported only general percentages that combined the responses from males and females, these results parallel those reported by both Kenig and Ryan (1986), who found significant gender differences in the definitions of sexual harassment, and those of Fitzgerald and Ormerod (1991), who found significant gender differences relating to the perceptions of sexual harassing behaviors.
Based on prior research (see Cortina, Swan, Fitzgerald, & Waldo, 1998; Fitzgerald et al., 1988), one would expect that sexual harassment among the faculty and/or staff would tend to precipitate negative impacts on the victim, the campus community, and perhaps even the university classroom. Additionally, one plausible consequence resulting from the negative impact of sexual harassment on the victim is poor job performance. For example, research has shown that federal employees who encountered frequent sexual harassment experienced substandard job productivity, problems with careers, and poor interpersonal relationships (Gutek & Dunwoody, 1998; Stockdale, 1998; United States Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981, 1988). Further research is required to investigate how and to what extent sexual harassment influences the job performance of teachers with respect to issues, such as: student-teacher interactions, classroom atmosphere, teacher evaluations (student and peer), research productivity, committee involvement, and numerous other issues relating to graduate study, professional development, promotion, and tenure.
Given the potential ramifications of sexual victimization, including that from harassment, attempts at primary intervention, or prevention, are imperative—however, at the same time, the results from this study also indicate that a thorough reevaluation of official anti-harassment policies and procedures is warranted. The results of the current study suggest that strategies for stopping harassment when it starts may take two general forms: an “active” form and a “passive” form, but in neither case do victims at the university seek out the assistance of official channels for relief from, or prosecution of sexual harassment. “Active” forms of opposing sexual harassment (those most commonly reported by male victims) involve taking the offensive, through threatening to report the harasser or contacting the harasser’s spouse. While passive resistance (typically reported as a response by female victims) is aimed at behavioral avoidance, specifically ignoring the behavior or avoiding the harasser in hopes that the behavior will cease. One can draw similarities to a child’s playground, wherein children may deal with a bully through avoidance behaviors or through trying to get the bully “in trouble.” The active strategy may involve more risk, through an escalation of sorts, whereas the passive strategy may be safer in the short-term but without a likely intervention to prevent future harassment.
In this study, men were more likely to support the use of active strategies, whereas women were more likely to support the use of passive strategies. One could suggest that given the fact that men are more likely to be harassers (Paludi & Barickman, 1991), they might be more aware of what behaviors might effectively oppose such harassment. Proceeding with this logic, for men, active strategies may be particularly effective in preventing further harassment. Indeed, further research might explore which type of strategy is more likely to actually stop harassment. However, in either case, the reasons are unclear as to why victims of harassment reject the option of employing official channels to censure harassers.
Another way to view this gender difference in the perception of strategy efficacy is from the perspective of the power differential inherent in many sexual harassment situations. For example, because males tend to hold more power and influence in the corporate workplace, research has generally focused on males sexually harassing females (Farley, 1978). As more women began climbing the corporate ladder and acquiring power and influence, the roles of perpetrator and victim have become reversible (United States Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981, 1988). One expects harassment to be perpetrated by someone holding power against someone without as much power. Therefore, one might also expect less powerful individuals to be less willing to “take on” more powerful individuals, and thus employ a more passive intervention strategy (i.e., avoidance or ignoring the behavior).
The power role has typically been professionally defined; one expects a boss to have more power than an employee, and a teacher to have more power than a student. However, in the current study, the delineation of the preference in strategies along gender lines suggests that the power differential, even in the enlightened world of academics in the 21st century, is defined instead by gender. Women may resort to passive strategies for one of two reasons. First, women may still perceive a power gap based on gender rather than professional rank or status, and be more likely to respond with passive strategies. Second, they may respond in ways reflecting learned traditional gender roles even if they hold a higher status position than the harasser. This latter point offers a very interesting direction for further research, and may shed some new light on the issue of intervening in a harassment situation. Despite the efforts at empowerment of women in professional situations, such sexual confrontations may still result in passive strategies that are ineffective at preventing victimization.
Recent investigations by the University of New Hampshire offer further insight into the reporting of sexual harassment complaints. In the University of New Hampshire President’s Commission on the Status of Women (SHARP, 1994), their statistics indicate that 14 staff employees and faculty members complained of sexual harassment through official channels over a four year period. Their data however do not permit the calculation of the incidence of sexual harassment among all employees (i.e., faculty, staff, and administrators), which precludes a direct comparison with the results of this study.
Although several conclusions could be drawn from the results of this study that would impact sexual harassment policies, the reader is cautioned to be careful when considering such conclusions. The results obtained in this study may be effected by several types of limitations or biases. First, the low response rate may have influenced the pattern of results. Research has shown that a low response rate in a study of sexual harassment is often accompanied by an increased percentage of respondents reporting sexual harassment (Gruber, 1990). If the low response rate affected this study in such a manner, then the incidence of sexual harassment reported was overestimated. However, one must also consider the possibility that the reported incidence of sexual harassment was underestimated. Vaux (1993) noted that victims of sexual harassment may be unwilling to complete sexual harassment surveys for at least two reasons: (a) participating in such a survey could generate negative effects for the victim, because it would force them to think about their sexual harassment experience, and (b) they are too embarrassed to participate (see also Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993b).
The low response rate in this study is not the only reason the reader should interpret the findings with caution. One cannot ignore the possibility that those individuals who respond to a survey on sexual harassment might be different than those who did not respond. There is a possibility that respondents in such studies may have hidden agendas for responding to the survey or failing to respond. Because the identity of respondents was completely anonymous in this study, we have no way of assessing whether there was a difference between those who chose to complete the survey and those who did not.
One of the many goals of research examining the broad category of gender stereotypes is to impact societal concerns, such as sexual harassment. Sexual harassment is a real-world problem that has, and will continue to, cost employers millions of dollars. The utility of investigating sexual harassment lies in the broadened understanding of how, why, and when sexual harassment occurs. The results of such studies offer valuable information for additional consideration of intervention strategies, prevention of sexual harassment, and change both at the broad, institutional level and at the specific interpersonal level.
The existing anti-harassment policies at the institutional level tend to focus on instructing employees on the inappropriateness of sexual harassment. For example, numerous institutions have implemented anti-sexual harassment training seminars. These seminars typically define harassment and review the institution’s sexual harassment policy—however, they often include little or no instruction on preventing such harassment when it begins to occur. Institutions must better evaluate how such seminars and policies can assist in reducing the rate of harassment, both reported and unreported. In addition, institutions must study, develop, and implement policies that assist potential victims in the process of effectively responding to sexual harassment in the moment that it occurs, and also within the “real world” complexities of the workplace.
The current study suggests that current institutional procedures lead to an underreporting of harassment--at least at one academic institution. The reasons for this underreporting must be more clearly investigated and understood. Perhaps institutions need to better recognize that, for the individual victim, harassment is experienced as a personal trauma, based on an interpersonal interaction, not as an institutional issue. What sort of policy changes would enable victims to make better use of official channels in the process of sanctioning sexual harassment? Where are the flaws in existing systems, and how can they be rectified? Sexual harassment profoundly impacts the both the institution and the individuals involved. Further research is needed to better understand these issues so that institutions may significantly and cogently alter existing policies and intervention strategies to more effectively confront this widespread, but inadequately managed problem.
We wish to thank Shane Avery, Michelle Edgar, and Andy Martin who provided valuable assistance throughout the study.
A Faculty Development Grant from Valdosta State University supported this research. Any correspondence regarding this study should be sent to either author, Department of Psychology and Counseling, Valdosta State University, Valdosta, GA 31698-0100. Electronic mail can be sent to mawhatle@valdosta.edu or dwasiele@valdosta.edu
For questions a – l, please using the following scale to indicate, in most cases, how effective do you think it is for personnel to take each action given below to make others stop bothering them sexually?
Anonymous. (1991, Oct. 20). Men as sexual harassment victims. San Francisco Examiner/Chronicle.
American Psychological Association. (1992). Ethical principles of psychologists
and code of conduct. American Psychologist, 47, 1597-1611.
Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U.S. 742, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998).
Clay, G. (1993). The national men’s resource calendar, 9.
Cohen, J. (1969). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. New York: Academic Press.
Collins, E. G. C., & Blodgett, T. B. (1981). Sexual harassment...some see it...some won’t. Harvard Business Review, 59, 76-95.
Cortina, L. M., Swan, S., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Waldo, C. (1998). Sexual harassment and assault: Chilling the climate for women in academia. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 419-441.
Crull, P. (1979). The impact of sexual harassment on the job. A profile of the experiences of 92 women. In D. Neugarten & J. Shafritz (Eds.), Sexuality in organizations: Romantic and coercive behaviors at work (pp. 67-71). Oak Park, IL: Moore Publishing Company.
Deaux, K. (1995). How basic can you be? The evolution of research on gender stereotypes. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 11-20.
Department of Defense. (1995). 1995 sexual harassment survey. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.
EEOC v. Domino’s Pizza Inc., 113 F.3d 1249 (11th Cir. 1997), 118 S.Ct. 687 (1998).
EEOC. (2000). Sexual harassment charges EEOC and FEPAs combined: FY 1992–FY
1999. Retrieved August 1, 2000. Available: http://www.eeoc.gov/stats/harass.html
Farley, L. (1978). Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of women on the job. New York: McGraw Hill.
Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause sexual harassment: A theory with implications for organizational change. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 97-116.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281-294.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). The development and validation of an objectively scored measure of sexual harassment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Psychological Association, Los Angeles, CA.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and agenda for the 1990’s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 5-27.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, A. J., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Swan, S., & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn’t she just report him? The Psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 117-138.
Gruber, J. E. (1990). Methodological problems and policy implications in sexual harassment research. Population Research and Policy Review, 9, 235-254.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Gutek, B. A., & Dunwoody, V. (1988). Understanding sex and the workplace. In A. H. Stromberg, L. Larwood, and B. A. Gutek (Eds.), Women and work: An annual review, Vol. 2, Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Honan, W. H. (1994, September 17). Professor ousted for lecture gets job back. The New York Times, Section 1, p. 9.
Kidder, L. H., Lafleur, R. A., & Wells, C. V. (1995). Recalling harassment, reconstructing experience. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 53-68.
Murrell, A. J., Olson, J. E., & Frieze, I. H. (1995). Sexual harassment and gender discrimination: A longitudinal study of women managers. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 139-149.
Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75, S.Ct. (1997).
Paludi, M.A., & Barickman, R. (Eds). (1991). In their own voices: Responses from individuals who have experienced sexual harassment and supportive techniques for dealing with victims of sexual harassment. In Academic and Workplace Sexual Harassment: A Resource Manual. Albany: State University of New York Press.
Rosenthal, R. (1991). Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage Publications.
SHARP. (1994). Reported sexual assault and harassment at UNH. UNH President’s Commission on the Status of Women. Retrieved August 1, 2000. Available: http://www.unh.edu/womens-commission/AnnualReport/harass.html
Stockdale, M. S. (1998). The direct and moderating influences of sexual-harassment pervasiveness, coping strategies, and gender on work-related outcomes. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 22, 521-535.
UNH. (1993-94). Silva v. UNH et al. Retrieved August 1, 2000. Available: http://www.izaak.unh.edu/specoll/archives/guides/silva.htm
United States Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is it a problem? U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
United States Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). Sexual harassment in the federal government: An update. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Vaux, A. (1993). Paradigmatic assumptions in sexual harassment research: Being guided without being misled. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 116-135.
WAGE. (1993). Newsletter #1. Retrieved August 1, 2000. Available: http://www.wage.org/vol/vol1.html
1. In order to obtain a copy of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire and permission for its use, contact Louise F. Fitzgerald, Quality of Working Life Study, Department of Psychology, University of Illinois, 603 E. Daniel St., Champaign, IL 61820 or via e-mail: lfitzger@s.psych.uiuc.edu
© Radical Pedagogy