criminology writing assignment

On the Persistence of Sexual Harassment in the Workplace Author(s): S. Gayle Baugh Source: Journal of Business Ethics, Vol. 16, No. 9, Women in Corporate Management (Jun., 1997), pp. 899-908 Published by: Springer Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/25072957 Accessed: 22-10-2019 02:56 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide

range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and

facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at

https://about.jstor.org/terms

Springer is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of Business Ethics

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

On the Persistence of Sexual

Harassment in the Workplace S. Gayle Baugh

ABSTRACT. The persistence of sexual harassment in the workplace, despite the general abhorrence for the behavior and programs designed to eradicate it, is puzzling. This paper proposes that gender differ ences in perceptions of sexual harassment and power differentials in the workplace which permit men to legitimize and institutionalize their perspective are implicated. These two phenomena combine to result in blaming the victim of sexual harassment for her own plight. Shifting attention to the target of sexual harassment facilitates the persistence of sexual harass ment because the institutionalized responses to the problem remain unquestioned.

There is no question that sexual harassment has become an important issue for businesses. Estimates of the percentage of women who have experienced harassment vary from a low of 42% to a high of 90% (e.g., Baldridge and McLean, 1980; Fitzgerald et al., 1988; Safran, 1976; U.S.

Meris Systems Protection Board, 1981). It is apparent from these percentages that the problem is not trivial. Further, the human cost of harass

ment has been highlighted by the publicity accorded to situations like the Clarence Thomas

hearings and the Tailhook scandal. Given the attention focused on the problem of

sexual harassment as a result of such incidents, it seems puzzling that sexual harassment apparently continues to be a problem. Indeed, the number of complaints filed with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has increased

steadily, from 3 661 complaints in 1981 to 5 557 complaints in 1990 (Clark et al, 1991). It seems unlikely that sexual harassment will disappear from the work setting any time in the near future, despite the fact that sexual harassment is generally considered deplorable behavior (Tinsley and Stockdale, 1993).

Incidence studies have also documented that

sexual harassment is generally directed toward women and perpetrated by men. Although harassment in other gender combinations does occur, the vast majority of incidents involve a man harassing a woman (e.g., U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981). This situation conforms with social norms about sex roles in general, and so appears to be "natural" (Hotelling, 1991; Stockdale and Vaux, 1993). It is in part this very "naturalness" of sexual harassment that leads to

many of the difficulties in eradicating the behavior that will be delineated here.

Differences in perceptions of sexual harassment between men and women are also implicated in the persistence of harassment in the workplace. It is not too surprising to find that women tend to be more sensitive to sexual harassment concerns, given that women are primarily the targets of harassment, and men are primarily the perpetrators. Gender-based differences in per ceptions of sexual harassment will be explored next.

Gender differences in perceptions of harassment

Much of the research documenting gender dif ferences in perceptions of sexual harassment was conducted in university settings. Many of the

S. Gayle Baugh is an Assistant Professor of Management at the University of West Florida, where she teaches in the behavioral areas. Her research interests are in the

areas of organizational and professional commitment, mentoring, and gender differences in the workplace.

Journal of Business Ethics 16: 899-908, 1997. [27] ? 1997 Kluwer Academic Publishers. Printed in the Netherlands.

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

900 S. Gayle Baugh

studies simply asked college students to indicate whether particular behaviors or scenarios should be labeled as sexual harassment, or to rate the severity of the behavior in terms of sexual harass

ment. With one exception (Terpstra and Baker, 1987), these studies found that female college students rated more behaviors as harassing or rated the harassment as more severe than did male

college students (Baker et al., 1990; Fitzgerald and Ormerod, 1991; Kenig and Ryan, 1986;

Mazer and Percival, 1989; Murrell and Deitz Uhler, 1993; Page et al., 1991; Popovich et al., 1986; Powell, 1986). Another stream of research manipulated

specific factors other than respondent gender which could affect perceptions of sexual harass ment. Variables studied included the gender of the harasser, the status of the harasser (supervisor vs. coworker), the target's response, or the severity of the behavior. The effect for gender persisted, regardless of the other manipulations included in the studies (Gutek et al., 1983; Jones et al., 1988; Lester et al., 1986; Tata, 1993).

Surveys of working adults offer fairly consis tent results with respect to gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment, as well. One study of state government employees failed to replicate the gender differences apparent among college student respondents (Baker et al., 1990), while the difference was supported in four other empirical investigations (Fok et al., 1995; Gutek et al., 1980; Konrad and Gutek, 1986; Thacker and Gohmann, 1993). Two studies conducted with university faculty, who resemble employed adults more than they do college students, also supported a gender difference (Fitzgerald and Ormerod, 1991; Kenig and Ryan, 1986).

It is also of interest to note that in most of the research cited, severity of the harassing behavior usually attenuated the differences in perceptions between men and women. That is, as the harassing behavior became more severe, to the point of sexual assault, men and women tended to view the behaviors in a similar, negative fashion. Thus, in cases that might be termed "quid pro quo" harassment under the EEOC (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission) guidelines, men and women showed more agreement in their definition of

sexual harassment. In the less severe cases, like those that would be termed "hostile environ

ment" harassment, the gender differences in perceptions were more pronounced. These findings suggest that women are least likely to find agreement or support from male coworkers for the types of harassment that they are most likely to experience.

Potential causes of gender differences in perceptions

Potential explanations for the persistence of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harass ment include power differentials, self-serving bias, and different perceptual sets. The first expla nation explicitly acknowledges the importance of power differentials in supporting sexual harass ment behavior (DiTomaso, 1989; Kuhn, 1984). Because women usually wield less hierarchical power in organizations, and men have more, sexual harassment serves as one method of the

powerful asserting control over the powerless (Morrison and Von Glinow, 1990). This sugges tion is supported by findings that women are

more likely to be harassed when they move into higher levels in organizations or into non-tradi tional areas (Collinson and Collinson, 1989; DiTomaso, 1989; Gutek and Morasch, 1982; Kissman, 1990; Yoder, 1991).

Power differentials are most apparent when the harasser is the supervisor and the target is the subordinate. But power may also be an explana tory variable in cases of sexual harassment of coworkers. Peers or even subordinates may use sexual harassment in an attempt to gain power over a female coworker (Cleveland and Kerst, 1993) by directing attention to the woman's sex role, rather than to her work role (Gutek, 1989). While there is no basic incompatibility

between sex role and work role for men, women do not believe that they can be viewed simulta neously as competent and as sexual (Gutek, 1989; Sheppard, 1989). Further, women do not have complete control over whether they are perceived through the perspective of their work role or their sex role (Gutek and Dunwoody, 1986). Thus, women must guard carefully against situ

[28]

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

On the Persistence of Sexual Harassment 901

ations which emphasize their sex role at work, and respond in such a way as to direct attention back toward their work role. As a result, women are more sensitive than men to potential harass ment, which has the effect of undermining their work competence by highlighting their sex role (Gutek, 1989; Gutek and Dunwoody, 1986; Sheppard, 1989; Tancred-Sheriff, 1989).

Power differentials also serve as an indirect explanatory factor in sexual harassment through the mechanism of selective attention. Individuals

with less power tend to be more attentive to indi viduals with more power than the reverse. This attention is usually an attempt to predict and control the outcomes that are in the hands of the

more powerful. More powerful individuals need not focus as much attention on the less powerful, because the less powerful control few valued outcomes (Fiske, 1993).

Further, more powerful individuals have greater demand on their cognitive resources (e.g., more subordinates to be concerned with). Thus, less attention will be focused on understanding the circumstances surrounding behavior for each individual subordinate, making personal attribu tions more likely than situational ones (Gilbert et al, 1988; Gilbert et al., 1988). The individual with greater power is more likely to believe that an individual is involved in an interpersonal interaction because she wants to be (a personal attribution) than because she feels pressure or potential threat from the more powerful party to the exchange (a situational attribution).

A second potential explanation for persistent differences in perceptions of sexual harassment is self-serving bias. More powerful individuals tend to assume that interaction is non-coerced

and is rewarding to both themselves and the less powerful interactants. Lower status individuals tend to be more aware of constraints and the

potential for coercion in their relationships with higher-status, more powerful individuals (Brewer, 1982). Thus, higher status individuals are more likely to view an interaction as mutually rewarding, rather than as sexual harassment. Lower status individuals are more likely to perceive some coercion, and thus view the inter action as sexual harassment, leading to differences in views of sexual harassment.

A third explanation for differences in percep tions of sexual harassment is a difference in per ceptual sets or behavioral labels. The tendency for men to view fewer behaviors as sexual harass

ment stems from a tendency to misperceive (or at least to mislabel) friendly behavior on the part of women. On the basis of a laboratory study conducted with college student participants, Abbey (1982) suggested that men tend to view friendliness on the part of women as an expres sion of sexual interest, even when that was not

what the woman herself indicated her intentions

to be. Additional research has supported the process of misperception on the part of men, but not women (e.g., Abbey, 1987; Johnson et al., 1991; Saal et al., 1989; Shotland and Craig, 1988).

Stockdale (1993) indicates that the tendency to misperceive friendly for sexual behavior among men appears to be linked to a constella tion of other beliefs, including traditional sex role attitudes, tolerance for sexual harassment, and beliefs that women express sexual interest by being friendly. Thus, misperceivers seem to be likely candidates for at least the hostile environ

ment form of sexual harassment. Because mis perceivers believe that women are expressing sexual interest when they may in fact only be expressing friendship, misperceivers feel that their sexual interest is being reciprocated. This feeling

may cause misperceivers to persist in sexual behaviors at work when they are, in fact, unwel come to the target.

Misperceptions of friendliness as sexual interest may be implicated in the quid pro quo form of harassment, as well. Misperception is linked to a sexually harassing belief system, which has also been shown to be related to the propensity to sexually harass (Murrell and Dietz-Uhler, 1993; Pryor, 1987; Reilly, Lott, Caldwell and De Luca, 1992) and the tendency to rape (Malamuth, 1981). Although the relationship of mispercep tions to a sexually aggressive belief system has not yet been empirically tested, misperceptions and sexually aggressive beliefs both seem to be a part of a constellation of beliefs that might lead over time to quid pro quo forms of sexual harassment.

These three possible explanations are not mutually exclusive, and in fact all three can be

[29]

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

902 S. Gayle Baugh

operative simultaneously. Misperceptions of a female coworker's friendliness may be the result of a tendency to view such behavior as sexual, self-serving attributions, and limited attention due to power differences at the same time.

This suggestion leads to some very serious concerns that the elimination of sexually harassing behaviors in the workplace may prove to be extremely difficult. Because perceptions of sexual harassment are different between men and

women, and because people act on the basis of their perceptions, men and women may be acting in the context of very different "realities." The question arises, then, of the extent to which each gender is aware of the differences in perceptions, and whose perceptions are validated and given legitimacy within organizational settings.

Awareness of gender based differences in perceptions

Given the ample evidence regarding the greater sensitivity of women to sexual harassment in the

workplace, it is surprising that little research has focused on exploring awareness of gender-based perceptual differences. A lack of awareness of the differences in definitions or perceived seriousness of sexual behaviors at work has the potential for causing very serious misunderstandings between opposite-sex coworkers. The consistency with which gender-based differences in perceptions are found suggests that recognition of alterna tive perspectives on the part of each gender may be limited.

The one study exploring this issue (Page and Baugh, 1994) among working adults provided some unexpected results. The authors had sug gested that women should be more aware of male definitions and perceptions of sexual harassment than men would be of women's perspectives. This prediction was based on the influence of power differentials, as suggested above. Findings indicated that men and women when responding from their own perspective agreed on severity ratings of both quid pro quo and hostile envi ronment types of harassment.

In addition, when asked to take the perspec tive of the opposite gender, men accurately per

ceived women's perspective. Women tended to believe that men would under-rate the severity of quid pro quo types of harassment, despite the fact that men actually rated the severity of these behaviors the same as did women. There appears, then, to be less misunderstanding than might be expected between men and women regarding gender-based perceptions of sexual harassment.

This study tested only the cognitive recogni tion of sexual harassment behaviors, however.

Men and women may still disagree on the appropriate organizational responses to sexually harassing behaviors. A set of studies using working adults as participants suggested that similar cognitive understandings of sexual harass

ment do not imply similar emotional reactions to its occurrence. While the severity ratings of sexual harassment behaviors were similar between

working men and women, the sanctions sug gested for those behaviors were not the same.

Women suggested that stronger sanctions were appropriate than did men, implying stronger reactions to the situation than men had (Fok et al., 1995).

Perhaps women believe that men view sexual harassment as less serious than they actually do because women do not see appropriate action being taken as a result of incidents of harassment. Although both men and women see sexual harassment as inappropriate at work, women tend to see the behavior as requiring greater sanctions.

When those sanctions are not forthcoming, it may seem to women that the problem is being ignored or trivialized. This belief may result in a situation which women feel responsible for managing the harassment on their own, rather than reporting it (Gutek, 1989; Pringle, 1989).

Responses to sexual harassment

It seems obvious that sexual harassment has a

negative impact on the target of the harassment. Typical responses reported by targets include decreased job satisfaction, decreased organiza tional commitment, and increased levels of stress (Kissman, 1990; Loy and Stewart, 1984;

Morrow, McElroy and Phillips, 1994; Ragins and Scandura, 1995). Female targets also experience

[30]

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

On the Persistence of Sexual Harassment 903

tension, anger, and anxiety, while a more limited number experience depression or guilt (Crull, 1982; Jensen and Gutek, 1982). Female targets,

more than male targets, may also feel the need for medical or psychological attention (Thacker and Gohmann, 1993). Given the generally negative responses to sexual harassment, it is important to look at what actions women take

when they have been harassed, and the effec tiveness of those actions (Terpstra and Baker, 1989).

A limited amount of research has explored the mechanisms that women use to cope with sexual harassment. Terpstra and Baker (1989) found that, in response to 18 written scenarios depicting sexual harassment in varying degrees of severity, men and women indicated that they

would confront the harasser in a positive manner (24%), report the behavior within the company (20%), or ignore the behavior (15%). Although survey respondents overwhelmingly say that they

would confront a harasser (Gutek and Koss, 1993; Rubin and Borgers, 1990), only 46% of actual victims in the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board study reported objecting to the harassing behavior (Livingston, 1982). Many women chose simply to ignore the behavior (around 12%), and only a very small minority (around 2%) ever filed a formal complaint (Livingston, 1982; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1988).

Given the uniformly negative effects of sexual harassment on the target, it is interesting that so few individuals choose formal means to seek redress. Why would a victim of sexual harassment not pursue every means possible to eliminate the problem? The failure to pursue formal mecha nisms of resolution is particularly surprising given that most targets of sexual harassment are women, and women are slightly more likely than men to prevail in grievances of equivalent severity and viability (Dalton and Todor, 1985).

The reasons usually put forth for the failure vigorously to pursue formal means for resolving sexual harassment complaints are the target's fear of not being believed or fear of repercussions on the job (Cleveland and Kerst, 1993; Gutek and

Koss, 1993; Hotelling, 1991; Riger, 1991; Ragins and Scandura, 1995). This fear is not entirely without basis. Of the women in the U.S. Merit

Systems Protection Board study who reported taking formal action, fully a third (33%) indicated that the action made the situation worse (Livingston, 1982).

I suggest, however, that the reason that so few instances of sexual harassment are ever formally reported, and the reason that so many of the individuals who do take formal action see the situation as worsening, is more subtle, more

widespread, and more pernicious than retribu tion or simple disbelief. I suggest that there is a pervasive tendency to blame the victim for her own plight by discounting her definitions of sexual harassment or searching for causes of harassment in her own behavior. It is the phe nomenon of blaming the victim which reduces formal complaints of sexual harassment to almost nil and perpetuates sexual harassment in the work place, despite laws designed to eradicate the behavior.

Blaming the victim of sexual harassment

The phenomenon of blaming the victim in sexual harassment cases rests upon differences in perceptions and differences in power between men and women in organizations. The disparity in perceptions causes men and women to define situations in divergent ways. The discrepancy in power, generally favoring men, allows men to legitimize and institutionalize male-biased defi nitions of sexual harassment (Riger, 1991; Vaux, 1993).

Thus, a woman who attempts to make a claim of sexual harassment is faced with the task of demonstrating to a male-biased, if not male dominated, power structure the legitimacy of her complaint. The male-biased power structure probably does not share her level of sensitivity to sexually harassing behaviors (Baker et al., 1990; Fitzgerald and Ormerod, 1991; Fok et al., 1995; Gutek et al., 1980; Kenig and Ryan, 1986;

Konrad and Gutek, 1986; Mazer and Percival, 1989; Murrell and Deitz-Uhler, 1993; Page et al., 1991; Popovich et al., 1986; Powell, 1986; Thacker and Gohmann, 1993). And even when men and women agree on definitions of sexual harassment, they do not seem to agree on appro

[31]

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

904 S. Gayle Baugh

priate responses to that behavior (Fok et al., 1995). The woman claimant must make her case and hope for resolution in a system in which her views do not predominate.

In general, sexual harassment has been viewed as a personal issue, not an organizational concern (Gutek, 1989; Kenig and Ryan, 1986). Men are

more likely to subscribe to the view that sexual behavior at work is "only natural," and to believe that women simply over-react to that natural behavior (Jensen and Gutek, 1982; Summers and Myklebust, 1992). Indeed, in supporting a legal complaint of a hostile environment form of sexual harassment, a woman must demonstrate that the sexual behavior was "unwelcome," implying that there are instances when sexual behavior at work is viewed as desirable (Paetzold and Shaw, 1994).

This situation can be compared to instances of racial harassment. There is no requirement in such cases that a claimant must demonstrate that racial harassment is "unwelcome" in order

to support the case. It is, in fact, difficult to conceive of an instance when a target of racial harassment would consider the behavior desir able, yet the same does not hold true with respect to sexual harassment.

There are a number of factors which can serve

to minimize the perceived severity of sexual harassment, or to suggest that the behavior was not entirely unwelcome. Characteristics of the target that have been shown in the laboratory to influence perceptions of sexual harassment include style of dress, use of cosmetics, type of response, and feminist orientation (Abbey et al., 1987; Jones et al., 1987; Pryor and Day, 1988; Summers, 1991; Summers and Myklebust, 1992; Valentine-French and Radtke, 1989; Workman and Johnson, 1991). Factors about the relation ship which influence perceptions of harassment include the hierarchical relationship of the perpetrator to the target, career competition between perpetrator and target, and previous history of romance (Gutek et al., 1983; Jones et al., 1987; Lester et al., 1986; Tata, 1993; Summers, 1991; Summers and Myklebust, 1992). Finally, the severity of harassment and persistence of harasser also influence perceptions of harass ment (Baker et al., 1990; Pryor, 1985; Tata,

1993). In an organizational setting, determining the credibility of a claim of sexual harassment does not appear to be a simple matter of deter mining whether the harassing behaviors occurred or not, but also of determining the entire context in which the behaviors occurred and the extent

to which the target herself may be seen as culpable.

As a result, there is a great deal of latitude for the phenomenon of blaming the victim to occur.

Women in organizational settings are expected to learn to cope with sexual behaviors, and are con sidered to be less capable if they are unable to do so on their own. Women are prone to see themselves as responsible for the controlling the situation, and may be reluctant even to label the situation as sexual harassment (Ellis et al., 1991; Harris, 1990; Stockdale and Vaux, 1993). If behavior which could objectively be labeled as harassing is not identified as such, then sexual behaviors and sexual harassment will continue to be viewed as "natural," rather than as prob lematic (Felstiner et al., 1980).

Further, when the situation is appropriately identified, and a woman begins to take formal action to eliminate the harassment, she may again find herself the target of an attack. She may find that she herself is viewed as the problem, rather than the behavior which is the focus of her com

plaint. Because she is pursuing her claim within a system which is predicated on a male-biased perspective of sexual harassment, but which is required nonetheless to take some action as a result of her claim, she is viewed as the "problem." The target who brings sexual harass

ment to the attention of the organization is seen as the cause of the problem, not the behavior which underlies the complaint.

Because a woman's friendly behavior is sometimes, perhaps even frequently, misperceived as sexual, the woman complainant may be viewed as engaging in token resistance to sexual behavior in which she has been complicitous (Muehlenhard and Hollabaugh, 1988). She may be seen as changing her mind about the nature of the interaction in a self-serving manner, despite the fact that women often are unable immediately to label behavior as sexual harass

ment (Paetzold and Shaw, 1994). The claim of

[32]

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

On the Persistence of Sexual Harassment 905

sexual harassment is seen not just as frivolous, but instead as malicious. Anecdotal evidence supports the idea that

women are often blamed for the occurrence of

sexual harassment in the workplace. In one study a woman stated, "Many young women invite this sort of response by their behavior and the type of clothing they wear" (Collins and Blodgett, 1981). Another suggests, "Maybe my businesslike deportment prevents any encouragement of innuendos or allows me to be 'one of the boys' " (Collins and Blodgett, 1981, p. 80). Both quotes strongly suggest that it is the target of sexual harassment who is in control, with the power to discourage harassment with style of dress or deportment. Yet the prevalence and persistence of sexual harassment in the workplace discredits this view.

Beyond being responsible for the harassment itself, claimants are seen as liable for any negative effects that a claim of sexual harassment may have. For example, a claimant who supported her case in court reports, "One woman stopped me in the street and said I probably 'asked for it' and that I'd brought down a good man" (Clark, 1990, p. 64). Finally, one target expressed it this way: "I was the victim of sexual harassment and it was

a miserable experience. When I voiced com plaints to my so-called feminist male boss and male colleagues, I was made to feel crazy, dirty - as if I were the troublemaker" (Collins and Blodgett, 1981, p. 82).

From the perspective of a male-biased power structure (Collinson and Collinson, 1989), the

woman who claims sexual harassment is, indeed, the "troublemaker." It is the woman's non-nor

mative beliefs about the appropriateness of sexual behaviors in the workplace that cause her to take actions that necessitate a response, and sometimes negative consequences. Sexual harassment is viewed as a problem of misunderstanding, rather than a pervasive moral issue with regard to misuse of power (Feary, 1994).

As long as this view of sexual harassment persists, sexual harassment itself will persist. Shifting the focus of attention to the victim, rather than the behavior or the structural factors

which facilitate that behavior, serves to make the male bias in organizational systems invisible. As

long as the victim, rather than the behavior, is seen as the source of problems, targets of sexual harassment will be reluctant to pursue formal action, or even to label their experiences as sexual harassment. This reluctance enables a male

bias to persist, without acknowledgement or objection.

The unacknowledged male bias in organiza tional responses to claims of sexual harassment has a chilling effect on willingness to take action against harassing behavior. The tendency to blame the victim for eliciting sexual behavior serves to perpetuate the problem of sexual harass

ment. Worse, it also serves to focus attention away from those areas that should prove fruitful in attempts to eliminate sexual harassment from the workplace.

References

Abbey, A.: 1982, 'Sex Differences in Attributions for Friendly Behavior: Do Males Misperceive Females' Friendliness?', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 42, 830-838.

Abbey, A.: 1987, 'Misperceptions of Friendly Behavior as Sexual Interest: A Survey of Naturally occurring Incidents', Psychology of Women Quarterly 11, 173-194.

Abbey, A., C. Cozzarelli, K. McLaughlin and R. J. Harnish: 1987, 'The Effects of Clothing and Dyad Sex Composition on Perceptions of Sexual Intent: Do Women and Men Evaluate These Cues Differently?', Journal of Applied Social Psychology 17, 108-126.

Baker, D D, D. E. Terpstra and B. D. Cutler: 1990, 'Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: A Re-exami

nation of Gender Differences', Journal of Psychology 124, 409-416.

Baker, D. D, D. E. Terpstra and K. Larntz: 1990, 'The Influence of Individual Characteristics and Severity of Harassment Behavior on Reactions to Sexual Harassment', Sex Roles 22, 305-325.

Baldridge, K. and G. McLean: 1980, 'Sexual Harassment: How Much of a Problem Is It . . . Really?', Journal of Business Education 56, 294-297.

Brewer, M. B.: 1982, 'Further Beyond Nine to Five: An Integration and Future Directions', Journal of Social Issues 38, 149-158.

Clark, C. S., M. H. Cooper and R. D. Griffin: 1991, 'Sexual Harassment: Men and Women

[33]

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

906 S. Gay le Baugh

in Workplace Struggles', Congressional Quarterly Researcher 1, 539-557.

Clark, S. and S. Nelson: 1990, 'My Boss Ordered Me to Sleep with Him', Redbook Magazine, April, p. 64.

Cleveland, J. N. and M. E. Kerst: 1993, 'Sexual Harassment and Perceptions of Power: An Under articulated Relationship', Journal of Vocational Behavior 42, 49-67.

Collins, E. G. C. and T. B. Blodgett: 1981, 'Sexual Harassment . . . Some See It . . . Some Won't', Harvard Business Review 69 (March-April), 76-95.

Collinson, D. L. and M. Collinson: 1989, 'Sexuality in the Workplace: The Domination of Men's Sexuality', in J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred Sheriff and G. Burrell (eds.), The Sexuality of Organization (Sage Publications, London), pp. 91-109.

Crull, P.: 1982, 'Stress Effects of Sexual Harassment on the Job: Implications for Counseling', American

Journal of Orthopsychiatry 52, 539-544. Dalton, D. R. and W D. Todor: 1985, 'Gender and

Workplace Justice: A Field Experiment', Personnel Psychology 38, 133-151.

DiTomaso, N.: 1989, 'Sexuality and the Workplace: Discrimination and Harassment', in J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff and G. Burrell (eds.), The Sexuality of Organization (Sage Publications, London), pp. 71-90.

Ellis, S., A. Barak and A. Pinto: 1991, 'Moderating Effects of Personal Cognitions on Experienced and Perceived Sexual Harassment of Women in the

Workplace', Jo urnal of Applied Social Psychology 21, 1320-1337.

Feary, V M.: 1994, 'Sexual Harassment: Why the Corporate World Still doesn't "Get It" ', Journal of Business Ethics 13, 649-662.

Felstiner, W. L. F., R. L. Abel and A. Sarat: 1980, 'The Emergence and Transformation of Disputes:

Naming, Blaming, Claiming . . .', Law and Society 15, 631-654.

Fiske, S. T: 1993, 'Controlling Other People: The Impact of Power on Stereotyping', American Psychologist 48, 621-628.

Fitzgerald, L. F., and A. J. Ormerod: 1991, 'Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: The Influence of Gender and Academic Context', Psychology of Women Quarterly 15, 281-294.

Fitzgerald, L. F, S. L. Shullman, N. Bailyn, M. Richards, J. Swecker, Y. Gold, M. Ormerod and L. Weitzman: 1988, 'The Incidence and Dimensions of Sexual Harassment in Academia and

the Workplace', Journal of Vocational Behavior 32, 152-175.

Fok, L. Y, S. J. Hartman and S. M. Crowe: 1995, 'Sexual Harassment Sensitivity and Gender: Clarifying the Differences', unpublished manu script, University of New Orleans.

Gilbert, D T., D S. Krull and B. W Pelham: 1988, 'Of Thoughts Unspoken: Social Inference and the Self-Regulation of Behavior', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 55, 685-694.

Gilbert, D T, B. W. Pelham and D. S. Krull: 1988, 'On Cognitive Busyness: When Person Perceivers

Meet Persons Perceived', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 733-740.

Gutek, B. A.: 1989, 'Sexuality in the Workplace: Key Issues in Social Research and Organizational Practice', in J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred Sheriff and G. Burrell (eds.), The Sexuality of Organization (Sage Publications, London), pp. 56-70.

Gutek, B. A. and V. Dunwoody, 1986, 'Under standing Sex in the Workplace', Women and Work:

An Annual Review 2, 249-269. Gutek, B. A. and M. P. Koss: 1993, 'Changed Women

and Changed Organizations: Consequences of and Coping with Sexual Harassment', Journal of Vocational Behavior 42, 28-48.

Gutek, B. A. and B. Morasch: 1982, 'Sex Ratios, Sex role Spillover, and Sexual Harassment of Women at Work', Journal of Social Issues 38, 55-74.

Gutek, B. A., B. Morasch and A. G. Cohen: 1983, 'Interpreting Social-Sexual Behavior in a

Work Setting', Journal of Vocational Behavior 22, 30-48.

Gutek, B. A., C. Y Nakamura, M. Gahart, I. Hanschumacher and D. Russell: 1980, 'Sexuality and the Workplace', Basic and Applied Social Psychology 1, 255-265.

Harris, C: 1991, August, The Hostile Environment: An Exploratory Study. Paper presented at the meeting of the Academy of Management, San Francisco, CA.

Hotelling, K: 1991, 'Sexual Harassment: A Problem Shielded by Silence', Journal of Counseling and Development 69 (July-August), 497-501.

Jensen, I. W. and B. A. Gutek: 1982, 'Attributions and Assignment of Responsibility in Sexual Harassment', Journal of Social Issues 38, 121?136.

Johnson, C. B., M. S. Stockdale and F. E. Saal: 1991, 'Persistence of Men's Misperceptions of Friendly

Cues Across a Variety of Interpersonal Encounters', Psychology of Women Quarterly 15, 463-475.

[34]

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

On the Persistence of Sexual Harassment 907

Jones, T. S., M. S. Remland and C. C. Brunner: 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. and J. Ryan: 1986, 'Sex Differences in Levels of Tolerance and Attribution of Blame for

Sexual Harassment on a University Campus', Sex Roles 15, 535-549.

Kissman, K.: 1990, 'Women in Blue-collar Occupations: An Exploration of Constraints and Facilitators', Journal of Sociology and Social Welfare 17, 139-149.

Konrad, A. M. and B. A. Gutek: 1986, 'Impact of Work Experiences on Attitudes Toward Sexual Harassment', Administrative Science Quarterly 31, 422-438.

Kuhn, A.: 1984, 'The Power War: Male Response to Power Loss under Equality', Psychology of Women Quarterly 8, 234-247.

Lester, D., B. Banta, J. Barton, N. Elian, L. Mackiewicz and J. Winkelreid: 1986, 'Judgments about Sexual Harassment: Effects of the Power of the Harasser', Perceptual and Motor Skills 63, 990.

Livingston, J. A.: 1982, 'Responses to Sexual Harassment on the Job: Legal, Organizational, and Individual Actions', Journal of Social Issues 38, 5-22.

Loy, P. H. and L. P. Stewart: 1984, 'The Extent and Effects of Sexual Harassment on Working Women', Sociological Forces 17, 31?43.

Mazer, D. B. and E. F. Percival: 1989, 'Ideology or Experience? The Relationship among Perceptions, Attitudes, and Experiences of Sexual Harassment in University Students', Sex Roles 20, 135-147.

Morrison, A. M. and M. A. Von Glinow: 1990, 'Women and Minorities in Management', American

Psychologist 45, 200-208. Morrow, P. C, J. C. McElroy and C. M. Phillips:

1994, 'Sexual Harassment Behaviors and Work Related Perceptions and Attitudes', Journal of Vocational Behavior 45, 295-309.

Murrell, A. J. and B. L. Dietz-Uhler: 1993, 'Gender Identity and Adversarial Sexual Beliefs as Predictors of Attitudes toward Sexual Harassment', Psychology of Women Quarterly 17, 169-175.

Muehlenhard, C. L. and L. C. Hollabaugh: 1988, 'Do Women Sometimes Say No When They Mean Yes? The Prevalence and Correlates of Women's

Token Resistence to Sex', Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 54, 872-879.

Paetzold, R. L. and B. Shaw: 1994, 'A Postmodern

Feminist View of "Reasonableness" in Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment', Journal of Business Ethics 13, 681-691.

Page, D and S. G. Baugh: 1994 August, A Field Investigation of Gender-based Differences in Perceptions of Sexual Harassment. Paper presented at the

meeting of the Academy of Management, Dallas, TX.

Page, D, K. Williams and S. G. Baugh: 1991, 'Sexual Harassment: In the Eye of the Beholder', in D. F. Ray and M. E. Schnake (eds.), Southern Management Association Proceedings (Southern Management Association, Atlanta, GA), pp. 196-198.

Popovich, P. M., B. J. Licata, D. Nokovich, T. Martelli and S. Zoloty: 1986, 'Assessing the Incidence and Perceptions of Sexual Harassment among American Undergraduates', Journal of Psychology 120, 387-396.

Powell, G. N.: 1986, 'Effects of Sex Role Identity and Sex on Definitions of Sexual Harassment', Sex Roles 14, 9-19.

Pringle, R.: 1989, 'Bureaucracy, Rationality, and Sexuality: The Case of Secretaries', in J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff and G. Burrell (eds.), The Sexuality of Organization (Sage Publications, London), pp. 158-177.

Pryor, J. B.: 1985, 'The Lay Person's Understanding of Sexual Harassment', Sex Roles 13, 273?286.

Pryor, J. B.: 1987, 'Sexual Harassment Proclivities in Men', Sex Roles 17, 269-290.

Pryor, J. B. and J. D Day: 1988, 'Interpretations of Sexual Harassment: An Attributional Analysis', Sex Roles 18, 405-417.

Ragins, B. R. and T. A. Scandura: 1995, 'Antecedents and Work-related correlates of Sexual Harassment:

An Empirical Investigation of Competing Hypotheses', Sex Roles 32, 429-455.

Reilly, M. E., B. Lott, D. Caldwell and L. De Luca: 1992, 'Tolerance for Sexual Harassment Related to Self-reported Victimization', Gender and Society 6, 122-138.

Riger, S.: 1991, 'Gender Dilemmas in Sexual Harassment Policies and Procedures', American Psychologist 46, 497-505.

Rubin, L. J. and S. B. Borgers: 1990, 'Sexual Harassment in Universities During the 1980s', Sex Roles 23, 397-411.

Saal, F. E., C. B. Johnson and N. Weber: 1989, 'Friendly or Sexy? It May Depend on Whom

You Ask', Psychology of Women Quarterly 13, 263-276.

[35]

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms

908 S. Gayle Baugh

Safran, C: 1976, 'What Men Do to Women on the Job: A Shocking Look at Sexual Harassment', Redbook Magazine, November, pp. 217?223.

Sheppard, D. L.: 1989, 'Organizations, Power, and Sexuality: The Image and Self-image of Women

Managers', in J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred Sheriff and G. Burrell (eds.), The Sexuality of Organization (Sage Publications, London), pp. 139-157.

Shodand, R. L. and J. M. Craig: 1988, 'Can Men and Women Differentiate between Friendly and Sexually Interested Behavior?', Social Psychology Quarterly 51, 66-73.

Stockdale, M. S.: 1993, 'The Role of Sexual Misperceptions of Women's Friendliness in an Emerging Theory of Sexual Harassment', Journal of Vocational Behavior 42, 84-101.

Stockdale, M. S. and A. Vaux: 1993, 'What Sexual Harassment Experiences Lead Respondents to Acknowledge Being Sexually Harassed? A Secondary Analysis of a University Survey', Journal of Vocational Behavior 43, 221-234.

Summers, R. J.: 1991, 'Determinants of Judgments of and Responses to a Complaint of Sexual Harassment', Sex Roles 25, 379-392.

Summers, R. J. and K. Myklebust: 1992, 'The Influence of a History of Romance on Judgments and Responses to a Complaint of Sexual Harassment', Sex Roles 27, 345?357.

Tancred-Sheriff, P.: 1989, 'Gender, Sexuality, and the Labor Process', in J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sheriff and G. Burrell (eds.), The Sexuality of Organization (Sage Publications, London), pp. 45-55.

Tata, J.: 1993, 'The Structure and Phenomenon of Sexual Harassment: Impact of Category of Sexually Harassing Behavior, Gender, and Hierarchical Level', Journal of Applied Social Psychology 23, 199-211.

Terpstra, D. E. and D. D. Baker: 1989, 'The Identification and Classification of Reactions to

Sexual Harassment', Journal of Organizational Behavior 10, 1-14.

Terpstra, D. E. and D. D. Baker: 1987, 'A Hierarchy of Sexual Harassment', Journal of Psychology 121, 591-605.

Thacker, R. A. and S. F. Gohmann: 1993, 'Male/Female Differences in Perception and

Effect of Hostile Environment Sexual Harass ment: "Reasonable" Assumptions?', Public Personnel Management 22, 461-471.

Tinsley, H. E. A. and M. S. Stockdale: 1993, 'Sexual Harassment in the Workplace', Journal of Vocational Behavior 42, 1-4.

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board: 1981, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: Is It a Problem? (United States Government Printing Office).

U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board: 1988, Sexual Harassment in the Federal Workplace: An Update (United States Government Printing Office).

Valentine-French, S. and H. L. Radtke: 1989, 'Attributions of Responsibility for an Incident of Sexual Harassment in a University Setting', Sex Roles 21, 545-555.

Vaux, A.: 1993, 'Paradigmatic Assumptions in Sexual Harassment Research: Being Guided Without Being Misled', Journal of Vocational Behavior 42, 116-135.

Workman, J. E. and K. K. P. Johnson: 1991, 'The Role of Cosmetics in Attributions about Sexual Harassment', Sex Roles 24, 759-769.

Yoder, J. D: 1991, 'Rethinking Tokenism: Looking beyond Numbers', Gender and Society 5, 178 192.

University of West Florida, Dept. of Management and MIS,

College of Business, 11000 University Parkway,

Pensacola, Florida 32514-5752, U.S.A.

[36]

This content downloaded from 206.224.223.249 on Tue, 22 Oct 2019 02:56:39 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms