For Phyliis young

2

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace

Tamara A. Bruce

White women continually ask me, ‘‘how often do black women wash their hair?’’ and so I said, ‘‘you know this is like the third time you asked me how many times black women wash their hair, you already know the answer.’’1

The incident depicted in the epigraph is a prime example of the unique form that harassing comments may take when directed toward racial and ethnic mi- norities. Such behaviors, which are often influenced by racial and ethnic ste- reotypes, characterize an understudied form of workplace discrimination: racial/ ethnic harassment. Racial/ethnic harassment in the workplace is a crucial area of research given the current trends in workforce demographic composition. U.S. census data from the past decade (1990–2000) report that every racial minority group has increased its rate of entering the workforce, and the Caucasian group has decreased its rate (Table 2.1).2 This shift in the composition of the American workforce is best illuminated by estimates that less than 40 percent of it is comprised of Caucasian men.3 With this backdrop I begin to discuss the history and background of workplace discrimination.

BACKGROUND

Workplace discrimination has received increasing attention both in re- search and public realms since the late 1970s. Most notably, the introduction of the term sexual harassment as a specific form of discrimination has opened the floodgates for researchers and nonresearchers alike to explore the complexities of workplace harassment.

Racial and ethnic harassment, however, has not experienced the prolifer- ation of research and attention that its older sibling sexual harassment has

received.4 Harassment and stress research has often overlooked ethnic minority employees, and that which has been performed has often used convenience samples (e.g., professional society members) unlikely to generalize to the entire worker population.5 Racial and ethnic harassment has only relatively recently become the primary focus of empirical studies and begun to distinguish itself as a unique form of workplace discrimination.

This chapter explores racial and ethnic harassment in the workplace by detailing primarily empirical research that has been conducted on both racial and ethnic harassment and its related constructs. First, racial and ethnic ha- rassment will be defined to help distinguish it from similar phenomena. Sec- ond, the research on racial and ethnic discrimination and the sexual harassment of ethnic and racial minorities will be discussed as a foundation for under- standing racial and ethnic harassment. Third, the nature of racial and ethnic harassment and its relationship with other forms of discrimination will be de- lineated. Finally, I will conclude with a discussion of the challenges faced by racial and ethnic harassment researchers and directions for future study.

Due to the many chapters, articles, and books reviewing the historical and legal background of sexual harassment and well-documented information on racial discrimination, this chapter will only touch on those areas briefly as they apply to racial and ethnic harassment.6 In addition, this chapter will only focus on U.S.-based experiences, because other countries have different laws and racial/ethnic compositions.7

SEMANTIC DISTINCTIONS

To discuss racial and ethnic harassment and its related constructs, a few semantic issues must be addressed initially. Sometimes publications on racial and ethnic harassment and discrimination define race or ethnicity, describe differences between the two constructs, and justify the term chosen for the dialogue. Some key distinctions that are usually mentioned include the dif- ference between a biologically determined framework of race and a socially

TABLE 2.1. U.S. Civilian Employed Workforce 1990–2000

1990 2000 Change

Black 9.9% 10.1% 2.7% American Indian, Eskimo, or Aleut 0.6% 0.7% 12.8% Asian or Pacific Islander 2.9% 3.8% 29.0% Other race 3.4% 6.7% 98.8%

16.8% 21.3% 26.9% White 83.2% 78.7% !5.4% Entire workforce change 2.8%

26 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

constructed framework of ethnicity. However, many people today (researchers and nonresearchers alike) use these terms interchangeably and even view the constructs as equivalent.

Nonetheless, race and ethnicity are different by definition, and with the growing Hispanic population in the United States, one of the most common trends is to distinguish between Caucasian Hispanic and Caucasian non-Hispanic ethnicities.8 Although a person of German descent and one of Latin American descent may both be classified as Caucasian in terms of race, their ethnic classi- fication would be different. Thus, a practical distinction between race and eth- nicity is the visibility level of the characteristics. Although an individual’s race may not always be easy to determine by observation, it is usually more visible than a person’s ethnicity. To establish ethnicity, observers rely more heavily on inferences and other characteristics (e.g., manner of speech).9

Given that ethnicity is generally a less visible characteristic than race, managing their minority group identity may be easier for ethnic than racial minorities. Stigmatized individuals who have been able to cross group boundaries may enjoy the benefits of majority group membership and feel significantly less stigmatized or not stigmatized at all compared to those who cannot or do not cross such boundaries.10 Therefore, the nature of ethnic harassment may be qualitatively different from racial harassment because of the increased potential for identity management strategies.

Thus arguments can be made for and against the separation of the ethnic and racial harassment constructs. Some distinguish between the two, whereas others do not; still others simply confuse them.11 The matter is further complicated by the intimate relationship between the two constructs. Victims of racial or ethnic harassment are likely to be unable to distinguish whether they were targets of harassment because of their race or ethnicity. Finally, these forms of research suffer from a lack of empirical investigations examining the differences between ethnic and racial harassment.

Therefore, for the purposes of this review, the term racial/ethnic harassment (REH) will be adopted in most of the discussion in an attempt to use research on both forms to create on overarching framework for the study of either. Alternatively, the terms racial harassment (RH) and ethnic harassment (EH) will be used only when differences between the two constructs are being directly compared. This approach is not intended to discount the differences between the two constructs but to allow for a more coherent review of the relevant literature. However, I contend that because research about racial and ethnic harassment is still in its infancy, a strategy of integration as opposed to segre- gation will best serve the advancement of understanding the two phenomena.

Similarly, a variety of terms, such as Caucasian, white, and Anglo American or black, people of color, and African American, are often used to describe like groups of people. Again, to reduce the already present fragmentation in this research resulting from the multiple disciplines and approaches used to study it, certain descriptors will be considered to encompass or be synonymous with

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 27

other similar ones (e.g., a statement about African Americans should be re- garded as generalizable to blacks and people of color).

DEFINITION OF RACIAL /ETHNIC HARASSMENT

Racial/ethnic harassment has typically been conceptualized as threatening or verbal conduct or exclusionary behavior with a racial/ethnic component and is directed at targets due to their race or ethnicity.12 Comparatively, racial/ ethnic discrimination (RED) involves behaviors or practices that impede career opportunities or earning potential due to race or ethnicity.13 These definitions are parallel to those of sexual harassment (SH) and sexual discrimination (SD). Like SH and SD, REH and RED are illegal under federal law.

Part of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 made employment discrimination ille- gal. Specifically, Title VII made it unlawful to discriminate against individuals in an employment setting based on their race, sex, color, religion, or national origin.14 Since 1964, additional federal legislation has expanded the list of pro- tected classes to include age, disability, and familial and veteran status.

In both the empirical and legislative realms, REH, like SH, is considered a specific type of discrimination. Discrimination occurs when a person or group of people is treated differently than another person or group. Although all ha- rassment is considered discrimination, many forms of discrimination would not be defined as harassment.

Two major criteria must be met to label a behavior as a type of harassment as opposed to the more general category of discrimination. First, in harassment, people typically go out of their way to bother others by behaving in a manner that is unrelated to appropriate work conduct (e.g., teasing, fondling, etc.). Harassment therefore consists of behavior outside the scope of necessary job performance presumably engaged in for personal gratification, because of other personal motives, or due to meanness or bigotry. Discrimination claims, by contrast, involve perceptions of unfair outcomes of necessary human resource management processes. The second distinction is that harassment is usually a continual pattern of behaviors, whereas discrimination can be a one-time event (e.g., firing or hiring).

As previously mentioned, although the means by which individuals deter- mine another’s race or ethnicity may differ, the forms of behavior that constitute RH and EH appear to be relatively similar. REH behaviors have been categorized into two types, verbal behaviors such as comments, jokes, slurs, and so on related to one’s ethnicity or race, and exclusionary behaviors such as being excluded from a social event, not being given necessary information due to one’s ethnicity or race, or being pressured to ‘‘give up’’ one’s ethnic/racial identity to fit in.15

Some have suggested the exclusionary behaviors component of REH as unique to harassment based on ethnicity/race, because previous SH research has not explicitly focused on such behaviors. However, SH inventories may

28 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

capture some if not all types of exclusionary behaviors based on gender with items asking whether someone has ‘‘treated you differently because of your sex (for example, mistreated, slighted, or ignored you).’’16 The focus on exclu- sionary behaviors in REH but not in SH measures appears to be motivated by their frequency within each harassment type. Thus, research and practice suggest that individuals may encounter exclusionary behaviors based on gender or ethnicity/race, but that those experiencing REH are far more likely to en- counter exclusionary behaviors than those facing SH.17

In discussions of sexual harassment, many authors have cited the grounding of violence against women in the sociocultural roots of gender and power.18

Moreover, researchers suggest that any key dimension of social stratification (e.g., race, ethnicity, or gender) is strongly linked to discrimination and ha- rassment and argue that the marginalized status of women and racial/ethnic minorities in our society makes them more susceptible to becoming victims of harassment in general.19

RACIAL /ETHNIC DISCRIMINATION

Given that harassment is a specific form of discrimination, much relevant research on REH has actually been performed in the area of RED. Many studies over the years have shown that race, as expected, is an important factor to con- sider when investigating racial discrimination.20

RED has been shown to be related to a host of negative outcomes, including lowered co-worker satisfaction and job satisfaction, poorer mental health and emotional well-being, and poorer physical well-being.21

Separation of Harassment and Discrimination

A major problem in investigating REH is that harassment as a form of dis- crimination is rarely distinguished from its larger parent construct in studies of discrimination, despite evidence showing that the two phenomena result in different workplace outcomes, therefore suggesting that they operate in separate psychological domains within the workplace.22 Moreover, the ability to distin- guish the two constructs is rarely present because many measures of RED (also often called racist events or perceived racism) assess an array of somewhat ge- neric experiences.

For example, Landrine and Klonoff found striking results during their validation of an 18-item measure of racial discrimination on a sample of 153 university-affiliated African American students, faculty, and staff.23 Nearly all participants reported experiencing some type of racist discrimination in the past year (98.1 percent), and all had encountered it in their lifetime (100 percent). Additionally, 99.4 percent of the sample indicated that such racist events cre- ated stress in their lives.

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 29

Given these findings, discerning the number of these events that would be classified as REH and RED would be interesting. But further investigation of the measurement items reveals that such distinctions are rather difficult. Some items, such as number fifteen, ‘‘How many times have you been called a racist name like ?’’ may be relatively easily categorized as racial harassment. However, many others, such as number three, ‘‘How many times have you been treated unfairly by your co-workers, fellow students, and colleagues because you are black?’’ is too broad to determine if respondents are recalling specifically harassing or generally discriminatory events. Such items should not be dis- counted as potentially reliable and valid measures of racial discrimination, but they impede our ability to measure the unique effects of REH.

Similar difficulties arise with other instruments.24 Reporting frequencies of individual items that clearly fit into one category or another is possible using such scales. This practice, however, may lead to a distortion and deficiency in measurement of the two constructs. Without racial discrimination surveys that include clear harassment subscales or entire racial harassment instruments themselves, the field will constantly suffer from an inability to determine the true impact of the phenomenon.

ETHNIC/RACIAL MINORITY EXPERIENCES OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Interestingly, REH research has been more heavily based on studies dealing with sexual harassment than on those of racial discrimination or racism. In fact, REH research may be seen as the most recent construct development in a progression of research based on SH experiences but departing from the tra- ditional Caucasian female as the victim. To better understand the theoretical and methodological roots of REH, examining the first step in that progression, research on the SH experiences of racial/ethnic minorities, is important. This area of research may be considered as having bridged the gap between studies of SH and REH and, more importantly, introduced the use of SH paradigms when examining harassment experiences affected by racial/ethnic variables.

Since the late 1970s when Catherine MacKinnon published her semi- nal work on sexual harassment, ethnic or racial minority women have been considered more likely to experience sexual harassment than nonminority women.25 However, such research is comparatively scarce within the arena of sexual harassment. This is mainly because research on SH has typically relied on samples of Caucasian females.26 Practically, this has occurred because field studies usually have too few women of color to analyze racial differences, and lab studies rarely specify the race of either the harasser or victim.27 Additionally, potentially useful data often cannot be utilized by other researchers because information on the racial/ethnic demography of the sample is not included in publications.28

30 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

Despite these obstacles, usable findings exist. Some claim that experiences of sexual harassment do not differ significantly between racial/ethnic minorities and nonminorities.29 Others report mixed findings or find that theoretical models of sexual harassment are similar for different ethnic groups.30

However, a much larger proportion of studies report that differences between racial/ethnic minorities and nonminorities exist in the severity and amount of the SH, coping strategies, incidence rates, work outcomes, status level and race of perpetrators, and type of harassment.31 In fact, some researchers have even adapted existing SH measures for use with a specific ethnic population.32

In cases comparing multiple racial/ethnic minority groups, some research has found that African American women report the highest incidence of SH (62 percent), followed closely by Latinas (60 percent), European American women (56 percent), and Asian/East Indian American women (46 percent).33

INCIDENCE, CORRELATES, AND CURRENT MEASURES OF REH

Contrary to what the empirical literature on sexual harassment suggests, one dominant measure of REH does not seem to exist. Within the past decade, though, researchers have used several approaches to try to assess this elusive construct. Although the relatively recent development of these measures as compared to other workplace discrimination surveys is not surprising given the history of the evolution of REH research, it nonetheless suggests that further empirical exploration and validation of the instruments are important. More- over, the nuances of the construct of REH and the way each scale captures them can be determined only after each has been used repeatedly in samples with diverse occupational, socioeconomic, and racial/ethnic characteristics.

The purpose of this review of current measures is not to compare or evalu- ate their validity or utility but to showcase each plan of research to observe the direction current REH research is following. Many other measures not men- tioned in this chapter also contain questions and subscales that assess REH (e.g., the Perceived Ethnic Discrimination Questionnaire).34 However, the focus of these omitted measures is on RED rather than REH specifically, and for that reason they are not discussed.

The first measure is labeled the Ethnic Harassment Experiences scale.35 It contains seven items (!¼0.79) and assesses exposure to threatening behavior in the form of ethnic derogation and social exclusion during the previous twenty- four months. The development of the measure was informed by analysis of employed students’ descriptions of ethnic harassment incidents. Sample items include evaluating how often someone in the participant’s institution ‘‘called [the person] by a racial/ethnic slur,’’ or ‘‘excluded [him or her] from social interactions because of . . . race/ethnicity.’’

Related to this measure, Radhakrishnan and Schneider also developed a Bystander Ethnic Harassment scale,36 which includes seven items (!¼0.84)

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 31

assessing bystander harassment that occurs when the person reporting the in- cident witnesses the harassment of another individual during the previous two years.37 It was modeled on a measure of bystander sexual harassment. Sample items include determining how often someone in the participant’s institution ‘‘watched [their] colleagues be the target of racist comments,’’ or ‘‘supported a colleague who talked with [them] about being the target of racial harassment.’’

The Racial Acts, Crimes, and Experiences Survey also evaluates REH.38

This scale includes 24 items (!¼0.90) assessing personal experiences with racism during employment at one’s most recent job. Sample items include asking participants if they were ever in a situation in which managers, super- visors, co-workers, or employees ‘‘made condescending remarks to [them] about [their] race,’’ or ‘‘excluded people of a particular race from organized social activities.’’

Yet another measure is the Racial Ethnic Harassment Scale, which includes fifteen items evaluating individual exposure to racial/ethnic harassment during the previous twelve months.39 Respondents are asked to separately indicate their experiences with respect to military and civilian harassers. This scale was mod- eled on the structure of the Sexual Experiences Questionnaire, Department of Defense (SEQ-DoD) sexual harassment measure.40 Sample items include asking how often individuals were in circumstances where they thought that someone ‘‘made unwelcome attempts to draw [them] into an offensive discussion of racial/ethnic manners’’ or ‘‘made remarks suggesting that people of [their] race/ethnicity are not suited for the kind of work that [they] do.’’

Finally, the Racialized Sexual Harassment Scale is a seven-item (!¼0.86) measure of incidents of racialized sexual harassment during a person’s em- ployment at his or her most recent job.41 Sample items assess participants’ experiences with situations in which their managers, supervisors, co-workers, or employees ‘‘told jokes or stories that described people of [their] gender and ethnicity negatively,’’ or ‘‘said they expected [the participants] to behave certain ways because of your gender and ethnicity.’’

It is interesting that the underlying construct dimensions of REH seem similar across the five measures just described. However, researchers developing these scales have used not only different approaches but also varying semantic choices. Two focus exclusively on ethnicity, one exclusively on race, and the remaining three include both constructs. Four of the five deal with direct ha- rassment, whereas one focuses on bystander harassment. Some incorporate significant sexual harassment content in the measure, and others use sexual harassment models to inform the development of the measure.

An important consideration when reviewing the current REH assessment efforts is that all of these measures were either indirectly or directly influenced by sexual harassment measurement approaches. Although these influences are not only expected and justified, their presence nonetheless has dictated that REH has developed similarly to SH. One wonders what a REH measure would look like if it were developed independently from SH models based on racism

32 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

frameworks and literature. Have SH influences limited the progress of REH measurement efforts? Answering this question is difficult given the youth of the REH research field and the lack of a parallel workplace harassment construct that has not been heavily based on SH theory. In time, however, any disad- vantages of this approach may become evident.

Setting aside potential limitations of the validity of these REH measures, studies using them have reported REH incidence rates of 40–67 percent among employed individuals.42 These rates have been shown to be affected by the victim’s race/ethnicity, religious affiliation, age, country of origin, organiza- tional ethnic/racial composition, and work experience as well as the harasser’s employment status.43 No consistent pattern seems to appear across racial/ethnic groups regarding how most of these variables affect the percentage of individ- uals who experience REH, most likely due to differing research methodologies of each study. A theme that does emerge is that ethnic/racial minorities expe- rience proportionally more REH than their nonminority counterparts.

Factor analysis suggests that REH consists of two underlying factors, one including nonphysical verbal, symbolic, and exclusionary behaviors, and the other including threatening or harmful behaviors.44 Additionally, REH expe- riences have been conceptualized as being more subtle and indirect in form and content.45 This finding parallels racial and ethnic bias research findings that most such behaviors are subtle, with only a small percentage of the pop- ulation exhibiting overt behaviors.46

REH also appears to lead to lower health satisfaction, lower well-being scores, higher general work stress levels, decreased job satisfaction, negative psy- chological and physical outcomes, increased substance abuse, and greater neg- ative affectivity.47 REH is related to worker dissatisfaction, which in turn affects turnover intentions.48 In the legal realm, a review of 131 civil cases of racial harassment found claimants most likely to be black (63 percent), work in the private sector (76 percent), and be employed in unskilled or semiskilled oc- cupations (59 percent). The employer is also likely to win in court 66 percent of the time.49 These findings suggest not only that REH is a unique form of workplace discrimination but that its correlates and outcomes are both signifi- cant and important to consider when investigating workplace harassment and its impact on individuals.

MULTIPLE FORMS OF HARASSMENT

Given the theoretical similarity of the constructs of racial, ethnic, and sexual harassment, one may wonder if the predictors and outcomes of one form can be explained by that construct’s correlation to the others. Fortunately, a few studies have attempted to investigate such relationships. Findings include signifi- cant correlations between racial/ethnic and sexual harassment that have ranged from 0.39 to 0.62.50 Factor analysis also has demonstrated strong associations

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 33

between racial and sexual harassment variables in the workplace.51 Though these correlations between constructs are high, they are not perfect, suggesting that the constructs differ on some level. These potential construct distinctions should be established by additional factor analytic work.

Employees subjected to multiple types of harassment have reported worse outcomes than those exposed to fewer forms.52 When considered simulta- neously, SH and REH have been shown to be significantly associated with different outcomes, with SH causally related to self-esteem and depression and REH linked to job and work outcomes, life satisfaction, and posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptomatology.53 REH also has been shown to have unique predictive ability beyond the effects of SH in the areas of work withdrawal, somatization, health satisfaction, and PTSD symptomatology.54 Additionally, bystander REH has been shown to be related to direct ethnic harassment and discrimination.55 These findings suggest that a climate where harassment of any kind is prevalent and tolerated leads to negative outcomes for employees. Moreover, the unique combined effects of these constructs provide further evi- dence supporting their differentiation.

As previously suggested, it is likely that many individuals are subjected to multiple forms of workplace harassment as determined by their individual characteristics. Examples of this phenomenon include findings that African American women are more likely to experience multiple forms of harassment and that minority women were significantly more harassed than minority men or majority men or women when looking at an overall combined measure of REH and SH.56

Recent research also has posited that various forms of harassment may coexist within individual behavioral incidents. Buchanan and Ormerod propose that the harassment of African American women is likely to be unique both in its perception as well as its form.57 Specifically, the nature of such sexual harassment is likely to draw on aspects of race, whether subtle or overt, when directed toward women of color. For example, although white women may be referred to as ‘‘sluts’’ or ‘‘whores,’’ an African American woman is more likely to be called a ‘‘black whore,’’ creating an experience that combines aspects of both gender and race. Women in the Buchanan study reported common experiences of racialized sexual harassment (harassment with both racial and sexual over- tones) ranging from racial/sexual comments to assumptions about competence, personal hygiene, and typical style of dress.

Similarly, Mansfield and colleagues found that African American trades- women had extensive gender-based and race-based harassment, suggesting that to some extent the two experiences co-occur among women of color.58 In their studies of African American women firefighters, Yoder and Aniakudo found that respondents refused to define their experiences as solely racial or sexual, as- serting instead that they reflected both forms of harassment simultaneously.59

In their study of black college students, Mecca and Rubin found that many African American women described the issue of sexual harassment as

34 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

inextricably intertwined with racism.60 In addition, Mecca and Rubin found that a unique category of harassment emerged in which sexual attention was based on racial stereotypes of African American women’s sexuality or on physi- cal features thought to vary by race (e.g., that black women have large behinds).

Texeira provided an analysis of the experiences of sixty-five African Ameri- can women in the law enforcement profession and described their experiences as having components of both sexual harassment and racial overtones, thus labeling such events racialized sexual harassment.61 Factors such as job ten- ure, marital status, and race of the harassers also played a role in the expe- riences.

These studies demonstrate that sexual harassment, when directed toward women of color, often fuses racial and gender domination and may be better defined as racialized sexual harassment (RSH).62 RSH seems to be a construct that is distinct from either sexual or racial/ethnic harassment.63 The existence of racialized sexual harassment has begun to be mentioned in the literature and is supported by previous and current research on multiple minority status.64

Those having this status may experience a situation of multiple advantage or jeopardy.65 Multiple characteristics can interact to create a unique result that is more than the additive effects of the separate status characteristics.66

Harassment combining significant aspects of both SH and REH is an in- teresting notion. To date, the work on what has been labeled RSH has not thoroughly investigated the proportion of harassment content that may be at- tributed to sexual overtones, racial influences, or both. Therefore, determining whether such behaviors should be labeled racialized sexual harassment and considered a distinct subtype of SH or sexualized racial harassment and viewed as a specific subtype of REH is difficult. This clouding of constructs has im- plications for REH research in general. If RSH were to be considered a form of SH, then perhaps any form of harassment with racial content that also has the potential for sexual overtones would be considered a form of SH rather than a separate form of harassment. Because many REH behaviors may incorporate sexual influences simultaneously, REH researchers are left with a difficult sit- uation. If REH continues to distinguish itself through empirical work as a distinct form of workplace discrimination, how should it be conceptualized—as a racially or ethnically based or a sexually based phenomenon? Researchers must seek to answer these questions with future studies.

Climate

Given evidence that multiple forms of harassment (and discrimination) are likely to coexist in the same environment and findings that harassment ex- periences are related to organizational variables (e.g., work satisfaction), one must question the role of organizational climate in the perpetuation of REH. The organizational model of sexual harassment posits that it is encouraged by organizational structures creating power differentials that harassers can take

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 35

advantage of. This model also can be applied to REH, as can similar research that has found that harassment is facilitated by the aforementioned power dif- ferentials and other organizational characteristics such as male-female ratios, amount of contact between employees, occupational norms, job functions and alternatives, and harassment policies and procedures.67 These findings suggest that organizational climate variables are likely to be associated with the inci- dence and outcomes of REH.

Again, borrowing from the sexual harassment literature, we find that the proportion of women experiencing sexual harassment has been correlated with a number of different constructs. These include organizational practices and cultures that do not promote equal treatment for men and women68 and related factors, such as social norms of the organization, the presence and effectiveness of policies prohibiting harassment, and the general sexual ambience of a workplace and its masculine job gender context.69 Finally, the percentage of women experiencing harassment has been linked to work groups’ perceptions of organizational tolerance for harassment and work climate, acceptance of superior–subordinate dating, and the differences in organizational power and gender between the harasser and victim.70 Additionally, meta-analytic findings indicate that SH is more prevalent in organizations in which large power dif- ferentials are likely to exist between organizational levels.71

In sum, these studies on sexual harassment depict the relationship between gender-based harassment and organizational variables that stratify individuals along gender dimensions. Similar relationships are expected to exist for REH, such that variables placing people in the workplace into different tiers according to racial/ethnic dimensions are likely to be associated with REH incidence and outcomes. In fact, recent work has found that an organization’s ethnic composition is an antecedent of REH.72 Therefore, future studies of REH should investigate climate and structural variables as potential antecedents of the phenomenon.

CURRENT ISSUES AND FUTURE DIRECTIONS

So far in this chapter I have outlined the definitions, correlates, and out- comes of REH and its related constructs. At this point, I will discuss ongoing challenges researchers studying these phenomena face, highlight a number of promising plans of research, and finally make suggestions for future endeavors in this arena.

Challenges

Because REH research is similar to SH in its form and structure, many difficulties faced by SH researchers also plague the REH arena. Specifically, one problem that has hindered SH researchers’ ability to accurately determine

36 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

prevalence rates of harassment has been differences in reporting practices. Looking beyond the mere presence of individual personality differences as in- fluences in harassment experiences, SH research has suggested the importance of examining individual variables, such as the nature and frequency of the ha- rassment, organizational status of the harasser, and characteristics of the victim (e.g., age, organizational status, gender, ethnicity, marital status), as important influences on the judgment process victims go through when interpreting po- tentially harassing events.73 Perceptions of an organization’s climate for sexual harassment have been shown to influence the interpretation of potentially har- assing events and to affect perceptions and attitudes toward the organization (e.g., work satisfaction) directly.74

How victims interpret an event (i.e., determine it as harassing or not) is directly related to whether they choose to report the harassment and to whom they describe it. Type and severity of experienced harassment seems to affect reporting patterns, and cognitive appraisal of a situation appears to be a sig- nificant mediator of the relationship between sexual harassment experiences and reporting behaviors.75

In addition to the judgment of whether a particular behavior constitutes harassment, other factors might influence if and to whom a victim’s decides to provide details of a harassment experience. When leaders do not support ha- rassment policies and procedures, victims are less likely to report the incident.76

As a corollary, leaders at multiple organizational levels who make an honest, concerted effort at prevention have been shown to have significant impact on how comfortable subordinates feel coming forward about a sexually harassing encounter.77 These leadership efforts have an impact that goes beyond im- plementation of policies and procedures discouraging harassment.78

Victims also must consider stigmatization and other negative consequences of reporting the harassment. In many cases, doing so leads to more negative outcomes than not.79 Thus, fear of being blamed by the harasser and others are deterrents to reporting sexual harassment.80 Targets’ perceptions of whether the organization possesses policies and procedures for effective punishment of ha- rassment are positively correlated to both victim reporting and their likelihood and method of seeking social support.81 A similar pattern exists for support of such policies and procedures by organizational leaders.82 Individual differences in witnesses or perpetrators of harassment also may play a role, because sexist attitudes and gender strongly predict the tendency to blame targets of harass- ment.83

Given these findings related to organizational climate and perception dif- ferences, the finding that Caucasians are more likely to indicate workplace SH perpetrated by male superiors and African American victims have a tendency to describe harassment by peers or subordinates is not surprising.84 In a related vein, the occupational status of harassment victims has been shown to be correlated with likelihood of reporting harassment incidents. Those of higher occupational

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 37

status report harassment more often than those of lower status. This relationship is explained by beliefs held by higher status persons who are less likely to fear retaliation and possess stronger beliefs about their abilities to create social change.85 Finally, less sociocultural and organizational power is associated with an increased likelihood of experiencing harassment.86

Because the majority of victims of REH are racial/ethnic minorities, inci- dence rate accuracy problems due to reporting practices are further aggravated. The findings suggest that in general, REH is likely to be underreported, that reported accounts are likely to be heavily influenced by occupational self- preservation concerns, and that REH experiences are likely to be qualitatively different than other forms of harassment. This triple threat translates into a host of difficulties facing current REH researchers.

Cortina and colleagues suggest that sexual harassment incidence rate dif- ferences between various ethnic/racial groups could be due to the tendency of some female ethnic/racial groups to underreport incidents involving sexual abuse.87 This suggestion seems plausible considering that ethnic and racial mi- nority individuals often have relatively low occupational status within an orga- nization either due to their social status or job title. However, it is unclear exactly how such status differences influence harassment incidence rates. Workplace status differentials could either cause minorities’ experiences to vary or make minorities more likely to report incidents differently. Alternatively, such status differences could exert both effects simultaneously. Nonetheless, the disparate impact of reporting practices on incidence rates for REH should be investigated further, with special attention paid to intragroup differences by gender and race/ ethnicity.

Another difficulty that sexual harassment researchers encounter involves determining the best method for measuring harassment experiences, par- ticularly when using self-reporting instruments.88 Meta-analytic findings from sexual harassment research demonstrate that more general, behaviorally an- chored items that do not force participants to label behaviors as harassment yield higher incidence rates.89 However, because REH behaviors tend to be more subtle and indirect in form and content, measures of REH require more de- scriptive information to determine if the behavior is indeed REH. Put simply, more general abstract items, for instance, ‘‘someone said something that bothered you,’’ are more likely to yield higher incidence rates. However the same items are unable to tap into specific REH behaviors and therefore distinguish between REH and other forms of harassment. To fully assess REH, such an item would require additional descriptive information, such as ‘‘someone said something involving racial or ethnic stereotypes that bothered you.’’ The latter example, though, would be more likely to yield lower, presumably more inaccurate inci- dence rates. This trade-off is a common concern for REH researchers, who must settle for a relatively narrow set of responses to measure REH precisely. Such limitations on the breadth of responses add to the previously mentioned mea- surement challenges.

38 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

Future Directions

As previously stated, much REH literature has been informed by research on sexual harassment. However, unlike SH, which has historically focused on women’s experiences, REH has the potential to affect both minority women and men at relatively similar rates. This fact is important when considering the current shift in racial and ethnic diversity among workers. This demographic change emphasizes that future research must focus on the specific nature of workplace REH using full-time employees rather than school-based REH re- lying on employed students’ experiences. As with any research on workplace phenomena, using student samples is often convenient but frequently fails to provide important information about the nuances of workplace environments.

In addition to increased use of occupational samples, the nature of REH dictates that effects must be examined with respect to both multiple racial/ ethnic groups and multiple status dimensions. Such social status stratification characteristics as gender, race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and sexual ori- entation may interact in unique ways such that workplace REH may vary in severity, prevalence, and quality depending on the characteristics one possesses. Furthermore, studying differences between Caucasians and non-Caucasians may dilute the true nature of REH. An example of how complex differences may manifest themselves can be observed in a recent study investigating both REH and SH experiences among different racial/ethnic groups. Results showed that Caucasians reported a higher incidence of SH as compared to REH, whereas all other groups had higher rates of REH as compared to SH. However, a particularly interesting point was that of these other minority groups, the multiracial group had the highest incidence and frequency of both RH and SH.90 This finding suggests that differences may be found not only between various ethnic/racial groups but also when more than one such race or ethnicity is present in the same person, as in the case of multiracial individuals.

Another aspect of REH that deserves increased attention is impact of the harasser’s race on the harassment experience. In a lab study, Shelton and Chavous found that college students rated sexual behavior as more appropriate and humorous depending on the race of the harasser and victim.91 When the victim was a black woman, the interaction was viewed as less appropriate when the harasser was a white as opposed to a black male. Replication of this finding in a field sample would clarify the mechanism of REH in the workplace. Additionally, if such replication were achieved, the demographic composition of various organizations and occupations may dictate that REH experiences vary as a function of job type or organization. This variation points to another area of much-needed focus with respect to workplace REH, organizational climate.

Organizational climate, as discussed, has been shown to influence the na- ture of workplace SH and REH in a parallel manner. Variables such as worker composition, embedded organizational status differentials, and formal and in- formal discrimination and harassment policies may influence REH experiences

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 39

similarly. Therefore, future studies should fully explore both the effect of work- place climate on REH and the impact of the prevalence and nature of REH in the workplace on the organization’s climate.

Another interesting future direction of REH research involves the impact of group and dominant culture identification in the mediation of harassment experiences. Studies have shown that common group identity can be a pro- tective factor against discrimination, although the protective qualities may differ at various levels of discrimination, such that the pride in one’s ethnic identity may have little buffer quality at very high levels of discrimination.92 Similarly, sexual harassment incidence among Hispanic women has been shown to be related to victims’ affiliation to the mainstream non-Hispanic white U.S. culture (acculturation), such that Hispanic women with the least affiliation reported the lowest rates of SH experiences, followed by moderately affiliated Hispanic women and non-Hispanic white women.93 These findings suggest that women with less affiliation with majority cultural norms, though reporting lower rates of SH than those with more affiliation, nonetheless experience worse effects of ha- rassment (in terms of factors such as work and co-worker satisfaction) than peers with greater connection to the mainstream culture. These findings from racial discrimination and sexual harassment suggest that one’s acculturation and affili- ation level may cause seemingly similar subjects (e.g., alike in ethnic/racial back- ground and gender) to report qualitatively different experiences or exposure to REH. Investigation of these influences is another topic of study for future researchers.

Finally, one of the most difficult aspects of REH research is that many measurement attempts require participants to make inferences about the mo- tivation underlying the harassment and whether it was driven by racial/ethnic influences. Such inferences are especially central to nonverbal conduct, such as social exclusionary behaviors. The importance of determining the impact of assumptions and inferences in workplace REH is underscored by laws dictating that workers are protected against only forms of harassment related to specific characteristics, such as race, ethnicity, and gender. However if a harasser chooses his or her victim based on an unprotected category, such as sexual orientation, personality, or another arbitrary reason, the behavior is legal. Therefore, exam- ining the possibility of developing measures that do not rely as heavily on in- ferential items to determine the existence of REH in the workplace is important. Respondents could be reporting false positives by viewing harassment based on unprotected categories the same as that based on protected categories, thereby diluting REH measurement efforts. REH researchers are likely to struggle with this dilemma for years to come, particularly because the same issue has not been completely resolved in the SH arena. However, comparisons of different mea- surement approaches, with some using more behaviorally based items and others using more inferential items, would help inform the measurement process.

In sum, workplace REH is a burgeoning area of research that is increasingly important, but it also is plagued by the complicated nature of the construct. As discussed, this chapter has approached REH as a union of research between

40 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

racial and ethnic harassment investigators. In reality, as research in EH and RH continues, significant distinctions between those two constructs may dictate the need for separation and comparison. Currently, however, the lack of empirical examinations directly comparing RH to EH allows conclusions to be drawn from combined RH and EH research. Among these is the fact that REH is a common occurrence in the workplace that has detrimental effects on its victims. With this thought in mind, occupational researchers and practitioners alike must look toward their future endeavors and consider the impact of this new phenomenon.

NOTES

1. N. T. Buchanan, ‘‘The Nexus of Race and Gender Domination: The Racial- ized Sexual Harassment of African American Women,’’ in P. Morgan and J. Gruber, eds., In the Company of Men: Re-Discovering the Links between Sexual Harassment and Male Domination (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 2004), pp. 294–320.

2. S. L. Clark and M. Weismantle, ‘‘Employment Status: 2000,’’ Census 2000 Brief (U.S. Department of Commerce, 2003); available online at www.census.gov/prod/2003 pubs/c2kbr-18.pdf.

3. M. Inman, P. Radhackrishnan, and E. Koster, ‘‘The Differential Effects of Ethnic Harassment and Discrimination at Work: Support for the Domain-Specific Model,’’ manuscript in preparation.

4. N. T. Buchanan and A. J. Ormerod, ‘‘Racialized Sexual Harassment in the Lives of African American Women,’’ Women and Therapy 25 (2002): 107–24.

5. K. T. Schneider, R. T. Hitlan, A. X. Estrada, D. Anaya, and M. Delgado, ‘‘Bystander Harassment: Attributions Regarding a Climate Tolerant of Harassment,’’ in T. M. Glomb (Chair), How Detrimental Is Sexual Harassment ? Broadening the Bound- aries of Research (Symposium conducted at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA, April 2000).

6. For example, see A. Levy and M. Paludi, Workplace Sexual Harassment, 2nd ed. (Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall, 2002); C. M. Steele, ‘‘A Threat Is in the Air: How Stereotypes Shape Intellectual Identity and Performance,’’ American Psychologist 52 (1997): 613–29; and J. P. Harrell, S. Hall, and J. Taliaferro, ‘‘Physiological Responses to Racism and Discrimination: An Assessment of the Evidence,’’ American Journal of Public Health 93(2) (2003): 243–48.

7. For a review of potential cross-cultural differences, especially because re- searchers and practitioners alike are becoming increasingly interested in the globaliza- tion of workforces, see P. Roberts and L. Vickers, ‘‘Harassment at Work as Discrimination: The Current Debate in England and Wales,’’ International Journal of Discrimination and the Law 3 (1998): 91–114.

8. Clarke and Weismantle, ‘‘Employment Status: 2000.’’ 9. K. T. Schneider, R. T. Hitlan, and P. Radhakrishnan, ‘‘An Examination of the

Nature and Correlates of Ethnic Harassment Experiences in Multiple Contexts,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 85 (2000): 3–12.

10. R. D. Harvey, ‘‘Individual Differences in the Phenomenological Impact of Social Stigma,’’ Journal of Social Psychology 141(2) (2001): 174–89.

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 41

11. For a discussion of the use of race versus ethnicity in ethnic/racial harassment research, see D. S. Blumenthal, ‘‘Race versus Ethnicity,’’ Academic Medicine 74(12) (1999): 1259.

12. Schneider et al., ‘‘An Examination.’’ 13. R. T. Hitlan and P. Radhakrishnan, ‘‘The Validity of a Context-Specific Scale

of Racial Discrimination,’’ paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Western Psy- chological Association, Irvine, CA, April 1999.

14. See E. J. Harrick and G. M. Sullivan, ‘‘Racial Harassment: Case Characteristics and Employer Responsibilities,’’ Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 8 (1995): 81–95, for a review of legal issues and regulations on racial harassment.

15. Schneider et al., ‘‘An Examination.’’ 16. L. F. Fitzgerald, S. L. Shullman, N. Bailey, M. Richards, J. Swecker, Y. Gold,

A. J. Ormerod, and L. Weitzman, ‘‘The Dimensions and Extent of Sexual Harassment in Higher Education and the Workplace,’’ Journal of Vocational Behavior 32 (1988): 152–75.

17. Schneider et al., ‘‘An Examination.’’ 18. L. M. Cortina, L. F. Fitzgerald, and F. Drasgow, ‘‘Contextualizing Latina

Experiences of Sexual Harassment: Preliminary Tests of a Structural Model,’’ Basic and Applied Social Psychology 24 (2002): 295–311.

19. L. Kalof, K. K. Eby, J. L. Matheson, and R. J. Kroska, ‘‘The Influence of Race and Gender on Student Self-Reports of Sexual Harassment by College Professors,’’ Gender and Society 15(2) (2001): 282–302; A. J. Murrell, ‘‘Sexual Harassment and Women of Color: Issues, Challenges, and Future Directions,’’ in M. S. Stockdale, ed., Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Perspectives, Frontiers, and Response Strategies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), pp. 51–66.

20. For example, see P. K. Mansfield, P. B. Koch, J. Henderson, J. R. Vicary, M. Cohn, and E. W. Young, ‘‘The Job Climate for Women in Traditionally Male Blue- Collar Occupations,’’ Sex Roles 25(1–2) (1991): 63–79; S. Valentine, L. Silver, and N. Twigg, ‘‘Locus of Control, Job Satisfaction, and Job Complexity: The Role of Per- ceived Race Discrimination,’’ Psychological Reports 84 (1999): 1267–74; Inman et al., ‘‘The Differential Effects’’; V. M. Mays, L. M. Coleman, and. J. S. Jackson, ‘‘Perceived Race-Based Discrimination, Employment Status, and Job Stress in a National Sample of Black Women: Implications for Health Outcomes,’’ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 1(3) (1996): 319–29; J. F. Dovidio, S. L. Gaertner, Y. F. Niemann, and K. Snider, ‘‘Racial, Ethnic, and Cultural Differences in Responding to Distinctiveness and Discrimination on Campus: Stigma and Common Group Identity,’’ Journal of Social Issues 57(1) (2001): 167–88.

21. P. Radhakrishnan, ‘‘Ethnic Harassment and Discrimination,’’ paper presented at the Department of Psychology, Penn State University, University Park, January 1999; E. A. Dietch, A. Barsky, R. M. Butz, S. Chan, A. P. Brief, and J. C. Bradley, ‘‘Subtle yet Significant: The Existence and Impact of Everyday Racial Discrimination in the Workplace,’’ Human Relations 56(11) (2003): 1299–324; E. Klonoff, H. Landrine, and J. B. Ullman, ‘‘Racial Discrimination and Psychiatric Symptoms among Blacks,’’ Cul- tural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 5(4) (1999): 329–39; see D. R. Williams, H. W. Neighbors, and J. S. Jackson, ‘‘Racial/Ethnic Discrimination and Health: Findings from Community Studies,’’ American Journal of Public Health 93 (2003): 200–208 for a review of negative mental and physical health outcomes of ethnic/racial discrimination.

42 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

22. Schneider et al., ‘‘An Examination’’; for example, Inman et al., ‘‘The Differ- ential Effects.’’

23. H. Landrine and E. A. Klonoff, ‘‘The Schedule of Racist Events: A Measure of Racial Discrimination and a Study of Its Negative Physical and Mental Health Conse- quences,’’ Journal of Black Psychology 22 (1996): 144–68.

24. For example, see Mays et al., ‘‘Perceived Race-Based Discrimination’’; J. I. Sanchez and P. Brock, ‘‘Outcomes of Perceived Discrimination among Hispanic Employees: Is Diversity Management a Luxury or a Necessity?’’ Academy of Management Journal 39 (1996): 704–19; R. J. Contrada, R. D. Ashmore, M. L. Gary, E. Coups, J. D. Egeth, A. Sewell, K. Ewell, and T. M. Goyal, ‘‘Measures of Ethnicity-Related Stress: Psychometric Properties, Ethnic Group Differences, and Associations with Well-Being,’’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 31(9) (2001): 1775–820.

25. C. A. MacKinnon, Sexual Harassment of Working Women: A Case of Sex Discrimination (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1979); J. E. Gruber and L. Bjorn, ‘‘Women’s Responses to Sexual Harassment: An Analysis of Sociocultural, Organiza- tional, and Personal Resource Models,’’ Social Science Quarterly 67 (1986): 814–26; D. Defour, ‘‘The Interface of Racism and Sexism on College Campuses,’’ in Michele Paludi, ed., The Ivory Tower: Sexual Harassment on Campus (Albany: University of New York Press, 1990), pp. 45–52; M. F. Karsten, Management and Gender: Issues and Attitudes (Westport, CT: Quorum Books, 1994); Murrell, ‘‘Sexual Harassment and Women of Color.’’

26. Cortina et al., ‘‘Contextualizing Latina Experiences’’; M. E. Bergman and F. Drasgow, ‘‘Race as a Moderator in a Model of Sexual Harassment: An Empirical Test,’’ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 8(2) (2003): 131–45; L. M. Cortina, ‘‘Assessing Sexual Harassment among Latinas: Development of an Instrument,’’ Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology 7(2) (2001): 164–81; S. J. Mecca and L. J. Rubin, ‘‘Definitional Research on African American Women and Social/Sexual Interactions in Academia,’’ Psychology of Women Quarterly 23 (1999): 813–17; Bucha- nan, ‘‘The Nexus of Race and Gender Domination.’’

27. J. N. Shelton and T. M. Chavous, ‘‘Black and White College Women’s Per- ceptions of Sexual Harassment,’’ Sex Roles 40(7/8) (1999): 593–615.

28. Murrell, ‘‘Sexual Harassment and Women of Color.’’ 29. For example, Kalof et al., ‘‘The Influence of Race and Gender’’; C. S. Piotr-

kowski, ‘‘Gender Harassment, Job Satisfaction, and Distress among Employed White and Minority Women,’’ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 3(1) (1998): 33–43; B. A. Gutek, Sex and the Workplace (San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1985); U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, ‘‘Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government: An Update,’’ Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies/Government Printing Office, Washington, DC, 1988; P. V. DiVasto, A. Kaufman, L. Rosner, R. Jackson, J. Christy, S. Pearson, and T. Burgett, ‘‘The Prevalence of Sexually Stressful Events among Females in the General Population,’’ Archives of Sexual Behavior 13(1) (1984): 59–67.

30. For example, M. Cortina, E. Shupe, A. Ramos, N. T. Buchanan, and L. F. Fitzgerald, ‘‘Effects of Sexual Harassment across Cultures: A Comparison of His- panic and Non-Hispanic White Women,’’ in L. Fitzgerald (Chair), Innovations in Sexual Harassment Research and Theory (Symposium conducted at the 12th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, St. Louis, MO, April 1997); E. Shupe, L. M. Cortina, A. Ramos, L. F. Fitzgerald, and J. Salisbury, ‘‘The Incidence

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 43

and Outcomes of Sexual Harassment among Hispanic and Non-Hispanic White Women: A Comparison across Levels of Cultural Affiliation,’’ Psychology of Women Quarterly 26(4) (2002): 298–308; Bergman and Drasgow, ‘‘Race as a Moderator.’’

31. J. E. Gruber and L. Bjorn, ‘‘Blue-Collar Blues: The Sexual Harassment of Women Autoworkers,’’ Work and Occupations 9 (1982): 271–98; Gruber and Bjorn, ‘‘Women’s Responses to Sexual Harassment’’; Bergman and Drasgow, ‘‘Race as a Mod- erator’’; R. R. Cox, P. W. Dorfman, and W. Stephan, ‘‘Determinants of Sexual Harass- ment Coping Strategies in Mexican American and Anglo Women,’’ in K. L. Middleton (Chair), Sexual Harassment 25 Years After the EEOC Guidelines (Symposium conducted at the Academy of Management Conference, Honolulu, Hawaii, August 2005); S. A. Wasti and L. M. Cortina, ‘‘Coping in Context: Sociocultural Determinants of Responses to Sexual Harassment,’’ Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 83 (2002): 394–405; L. M. Cortina and S. A. Wasti, ‘‘Profiles in Coping: Responses to Sexual Harassment across Persons, Organizations, and Cultures,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 90(1) (2005): 182–92; Mansfield et al., ‘‘The Job Climate for Women’’; A. Morris, ‘‘Gender and Ethnic Differences in Social Constraints among a Sample of New York City Police Officers,’’ Journal of Occupational Health Psychology 1(2) (1996): 224–35; M. A. Paludi, Sexual Harassment on College Campuses: Abusing the Ivory Power (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1996); L. D. Bastian, A. R. Lancaster, and H. E. Reyst, ‘‘Department of Defense 1995 Sexual Harassment Survey,’’ Report No. 96-014, Defense Manpower Data Center, Arlington, VA, 1996; G. E. Wyatt and M. Riederle, ‘‘The Prevalence and Context of Sexual Harassment among African American and White American Women,’’ Journal of Interpersonal Violence 10(3) (1995): 309–21; G. E. Wyatt and M. Riederle, ‘‘Sexual Harassment and Prior Sexual Trauma among African-American and White American Women,’’ Violence and Victims 9(3) (1994): 233–47; Cortina et al., ‘‘Effects of Sexual Harassment across Cultures’’; A. Culbertson and P. Rosenfeld, ‘‘Assessment of Sexual Harassment in the Active-Duty Navy,’’ Military Psychology 6 (1994): 69–93.

32. For example, the SEQ-L: Cortina, ‘‘Assessing Sexual Harassment among Latinas.’’ 33. L. M. Cortina, S. Swan, L. F. Fitzgerald, and C. Waldo, ‘‘Sexual Harassment

and Assault: Chilling the Climate for Women in Academia,’’ Psychology of Women Quarterly 22 (1998): 419–41.

34. Contrada et al., ‘‘Measures of Ethnicity-Related Stress.’’ 35. Schneider et al., ‘‘An Examination.’’ 36. K.S.D. Low, P. Radhakrishnan, K. T. Schneider, and J. Rounds, ‘‘The Expe-

riences of Bystanders of Ethnic Harassment’’ (manuscript under review). 37. T. M. Glomb, W. L. Richman, C. L. Hulin, F. Drasgow, K. T. Schneider, and

L. F. Fitzgerald, ‘‘Ambient Sexual Harassment: An Integrated Model of Antecedents and Consequences,’’ Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes 71 (1997): 309–28; K. T. Schneider ‘‘Bystander Stress: Effects of Sexual Harassment on Victims’ Co-Workers,’’ in J. Schmidtke (Chair), Responses to Sexual Harassment (Symposium conducted at the annual convention of the American Psychological Association, Tor- onto, Canada, August 1996).

38. M. E. Bergman and N. T. Buchanan, ‘‘Development of the Racial Acts, Crimes, and Experiences Survey’’ (manuscript in preparation).

39. J. Scarville, S. B. Button, J. E. Edwards, A. R. Lancaster, and T. W. Elig, ‘‘Armed Forces Equal Opportunity Survey,’’ Report no. 97-027, Defense Manpower Data Center, Arlington, VA, 1999.

44 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

40. L. F. Fitzgerald, V. J. Magley, F. Drasgow, and C. R. Waldo, ‘‘Measuring Sexual Harassment in the Military: The SEQ-DoD,’’ Military Psychology 11 (1999): 243–63.

41. N. T. Buchanan, ‘‘Incorporating Race and Gender in Sexual Harassment Re- search: The Racialized Sexual Harassment Scale (RSHS),’’ in N. T. Buchanan (Chair), Expanding Sexual Harassment Research to Include Diverse Populations and Intersecting Forms of Harassment (Symposium conducted at the meeting of the International Coa- lition Against Sexual Harassment, Philadelphia, PA, August 2005).

42. Schneider et al., ‘‘An Examination’’; Scarville et al., ‘‘Armed Forces Equal Opportunity Survey.’’

43. G. Corbie-Smith, E. Frank, H. W. Nickens, and L. Elon, ‘‘Prevalences and Correlates of Ethnic Harassment in the U.S. Women Physicians’ Health Study,’’ Aca- demic Medicine 74(6) (1999): 695–701; Inman et al., ‘‘The Differential Effects’’; Scar- ville et al., ‘‘Armed Forces Equal Opportunity Survey.’’

44. Scarville et al., ‘‘Armed Forces Equal Opportunity Survey.’’ 45. Buchanan, ‘‘The Nexus of Race and Gender Domination.’’ 46. J. F. Dovidio, ‘‘The Subtlety of Racism,’’ Training and Development 47 (1993):

51–57; J. F. Dovidio and S. L. Gaertner, ‘‘On the Nature of Contemporary Prejudice: The Causes, Consequences, and Challenges of Aversive Racism,’’ in J. L. Eberhardt and S. T. Fiske, eds., Confronting Racism: The Problem and the Response (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1998), pp. 3–32.

47. Radhakrishnan, ‘‘Ethnic Harassment’’; K. T. Schneider, R. T. Hitlan, M. Delgado, D. Anaya, and A. X. Estrada, ‘‘Hostile Climates: The Impact of Multiple Types of Harassment on Targets,’’ in T. M. Glomb (Chair), How Detrimental Is Sexual Harassment? Broadening the Boundaries of Research (Symposium conducted at the 15th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, New Orleans, LA, April 2000); Corbie-Smith et al., ‘‘Prevalences and Correlates’’; D. Hughes and M. A. Dodge, ‘‘African American Women in the Workplace: Relationships Between Job Conditions, Racial Bias at Work, and Perceived Job Quality,’’ American Journal of Community Psychology 25(5) (1997): 581–99; H. J. Erlich and B.E.K. Larcom, ‘‘The Effects of Prejudice and Ethnoviolence on Workers’ Health,’’ paper presented at the 2nd American Psychological Association and National Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Conference on Work Stress and Health, Washington, DC, November 1992; G. G. Bennett, K. Y. Wolin, E. L. Robinson, S. Fowler, and C. L. Edwards, ‘‘Perceived Racial/Ethnic Harassment and Tobacco Use among African American Young Adults,’’ American Journal of Public Health 95(2) (2005): 238–40; G. G. Bennett, M. M. Merritt, C. L. Edwards, and J. J. Sollers, ‘‘Perceived Racism and Affective Responses to Ambig- uous Interpersonal Interactions among African American Men,’’ American Behavioral Scientist 47(7) (2004): 963–76.

48. Inman et al., ‘‘The Differential Effects.’’ 49. Harrick and Sullivan, ‘‘Racial Harassment.’’ 50. Cortina et al., ‘‘Contextualizing Latina Experiences’’; Buchanan, ‘‘The Nexus

of Race and Gender Domination’’; Schneider et al., ‘‘Hostile Climates’’; T. A. Bruce and N. T. Buchanan, ‘‘Group Differences in the Relationship between Racial and Sexual Harassment and Academic and Health-Related Outcomes,’’ in J. M. Konik and L. M. Cortina (Chairs), Diversity and Antisocial Behavior in Organizations: New Con- tributions from Multi-level Research (Symposium conducted at the Academy of Man- agement Conference, New Orleans, LA, August 2004).

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 45

51. Cortina et al., ‘‘Contextualizing Latina Experiences.’’ 52. Schneider et al., ‘‘Hostile Climates’’; Cortina et al., ‘‘Contextualizing Latina

Experiences.’’ 53. N. T. Buchanan and L. F. Fitzgerald, ‘‘The Effects of Racial Harassment,

Sexual Harassment, and Appraisals of Harassment Severity on the Psychological Well- Being of African American Women’’ (manuscript under review); Bruce and Buchanan, ‘‘Group Differences.’’

54. Bruce and Buchanan, ‘‘Group Differences.’’ 55. Radhakrishnan, ‘‘Ethnic Harassment.’’ 56. Buchanan and Fitzgerald, ‘‘The Effects of Racial Harassment’’; J. L. Berdahl

and C. Moore, ‘‘Workplace Harassment: Double Jeopardy for Minority Women,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology (in press).

57. Buchanan and Ormerod, ‘‘Racialized Sexual Harassment.’’ 58. Mansfield et al., ‘‘The Job Climate for Women.’’ 59. J. D. Yoder and P. Aniakudo, ‘‘The Response of African-American Women

Firelighters to Gender Harassment at Work,’’ Sex Roles 32 (1995): 125–37; J. D. Yoder and P. Aniakudo, ‘‘When Pranks Become Harassment: The Case of African American Women Firefighters,’’ Sex Roles 35 (1996): 253–70; J. D. Yoder and P. Aniakudo, ‘‘ ‘Outsider Within’ the Firehouse: Subordination and Difference in the Social Interac- tions of African-American Women,’’ Gender and Society 11 (1997): 324–41.

60. Mecca and Rubin, ‘‘Definitional Research on African American Women.’’ 61. M. T. Texeira, ‘‘ ‘Who Protects and Serves Me?’ A Case Study of Sexual Ha-

rassment of African American Women in One U.S. Law Enforcement Agency,’’ Gender and Society 16 (2002): 524–45.

62. Buchanan and Ormerod, ‘‘Racialized Sexual Harassment’’; S. E. Martin, ‘‘ ‘Outsider Within’ the Station House: The Impact of Race and Gender on Black Women Police,’’ Social Problems 41 (1994): 383–400; Texeira, ‘‘Who Protects and Serves Me?’’

63. Buchanan and Ormerod, ‘‘Racialized Sexual Harassment.’’ 64. N. T. Buchanan, ‘‘Sexual Harassment and the African American Woman: A

Historical Analysis of a Contemporary Phenomena,’’ paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Women in Psychology, Providence, RI, March 1999; P. H. Collins, Black Feminist Thought: Knowledge, Consciousness, and the Politics of Empowerment, 2nd ed. (New York: Routledge, 2000); Defour, ‘‘The Interface of Racism and Sexism’’; Wyatt and Reiderle, ‘‘The Prevalence and Context’’; Murrell, ‘‘Sexual Harassment and Women of Color.’’

65. E. Higginbotham, ‘‘Moving Up with Kin and Community: Upward Social Mobility for Black and White Women,’’ Gender and Society 6 (1992): 416–40; S. Levin, S. Sinclair, R. C. Veniegas, and P. L. Taylor, ‘‘Perceived Discrimination in the Context of Multiple Group Memberships,’’ Psychological Science 13(6) (2002): 557–60; C. West and S. Fenstermaker, ‘‘Doing Difference,’’ Gender and Society 9 (1995): 8–37; H. Landrine, E. A. Klonoff, R. Alcaraz, J. Scott, and P. Wikins, ‘‘Multiple Variables in Discrimination,’’ in B. Lott and D. Maluso, eds., The Social Psychology of Interpersonal Discrimination (New York: Guilford Press, 1995), pp. 183–224; J. Lorber, Gender In- equality: Feminist Theory and Politics (Los Angeles: Roxbury, 1998).

66. E. M. Almquist, ‘‘Untangling the Effects of Race and Sex: The Disadvantaged Status of Black Women,’’ Social Science Quarterly 56 (1975): 129–42; B. Greene,

46 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

‘‘Lesbian Women of Color: Triple Jeopardy,’’ in L. Comas-Diaz and B. Greene, eds., Women of Color: Integrating Ethnic and Gender Identities (New York: Guilford Press, 1994), pp. 389–427; Landrine et al., ‘‘Multiple Variables’’; P. T. Reid and L. Comas- Diaz, ‘‘Gender and Ethnicity: Perspectives on Dual Status,’’ Sex Roles 22 (1990): 397– 408; Martin, ‘‘Outsider Within’’; Murrell, ‘‘Sexual Harassment and Women of Color’’; Texeira, ‘‘Who Protects and Serves Me?’’; K. Crenshaw, ‘‘Mapping the Margins: Inter- sectionality, Identity Politics, and Violence against Women of Color,’’ in K. Crenshaw, N. Gotanda, G. Peller, and K. Thomas, eds., Critical Race Theory (New York: Free Press, 1995), pp. 357–83.

67. S. S. Tangri, M. R. Burt, and L. B. Johnson, ‘‘Sexual Harassment at Work: Three Explanatory Models,’’ Journal of Social Issues 38 (1982): 33–54.

68. B. W. Dziech and L. Weiner, The Lecherous Professor: Sexual Harassment on Campus, 2nd ed. (Champaign: University of Illinois Press, 1990); S. G. Bingham and L. L. Scherer, ‘‘Factors Associated with Responses to Sexual Harassment and Satisfaction with Outcomes,’’ Sex Roles 29 (1993): 239–69; E. Lafontaine and L. Tredeau, ‘‘The Frequency, Source, and Correlates of Sexual Harassment among Women in Traditional Male Occupations,’’ Sex Roles 15 (1986): 433–42; G. Timmerman and C. Bajema, ‘‘The Impact of Organizational Culture on Perceptions and Experiences of Sexual Harass- ment,’’ Journal of Vocational Behavior 57 (2000): 188–205.

69. J. B. Pryor, J. L. Giedd, and K. B. Williams, ‘‘A Social Psychological Model for Predicting Sexual Harassment,’’ Journal of Social Issues 51 (1995): 69–84; J. B. Pryor, C. LaVite, and L. Stoller, ‘‘A Social Psychological Analysis of Sexual Harassment: The Person/Situation Interaction,’’ Journal of Vocational Behavior 42 (1993): 68–83; M. S. Hesson-McInnis and L. F. Fitzgerald, ‘‘Sexual Harassment: A Preliminary Test of an Integrative Model,’’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27 (1997): 877–901; Gutek, Sex and the Workplace; E. Haavio-Mannila, K. Kaupinen-Toropainen, and I. Kandolin, ‘‘The Effect of Sex Composition of the Workplace on Friendship, Romance, and Sex at Work,’’ in B. A. Gutek, A. H. Stromberg, and L. Larwood, eds., Women and Work, vol. 3 (Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, 1988), pp. 123–38; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, ‘‘Sexual Harassment of Federal Workers: Is it a Problem?’’ (Washington, DC: Office of Merit Systems Review and Studies/Government Printing Office, 1981); U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, ‘‘Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government.’’

70. J. B. Pryor, ‘‘The Social Psychology of Sexual Harassment: Person and Situation Factors which Give Rise to Sexual Harassment,’’ paper presented at the 1st National Conference on Sex and Power Issues in the Workplace, Bellevue, WA, March 1992; Pryor et al., ‘‘A Social Psychological Analysis’’; Fitzgerald et al., ‘‘The Dimensions and Extent’’; M. J. Zickar, ‘‘Antecedents of Sexual Harassment,’’ paper presented at the 9th Annual Conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Nash- ville, TN, April 1994; C. L. Hulin, L. F. Fitzgerald, and F. Drasgow, ‘‘Organizational Influences on Sexual Harassment,’’ in M. S. Stockdale, ed., Sexual Harassment in the Workplace: Perspectives, Frontiers, and Response Strategies (Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage, 1996), pp. 127–50; C. A. Cohorn, C. S. Sims, and F. Drasgow, ‘‘Organizational Cli- mate, Sexual Harassment, and Outcomes on United States Military Installations,’’ paper presented at 17th annual conference of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Toronto, Canada, April 2001; Lafontaine and Tredeau, ‘‘The Frequency, Source, and Correlates’’; M. E. Bond, ‘‘Division 27 Sexual Harassment Survey: Defi- nitions, Impact, and Environment Context,’’ Community Psychologist 21 (1988): 7–10;

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 47

J. A. Livingston, ‘‘Responses to Sexual Harassment on the Job: Legal, Organizational, and Individual Actions’’ Journal of Social Issues 38 (1982): 5–22; Tangri et al., ‘‘Sexual Harassment at Work.’’

71. R. Ilies, N. Hauserman, S. Schwochau, and J. Stibal, ‘‘Reported Incidence Rates of Work-Related Sexual Harassment in the United States: Using Meta-Analysis to Explain Reported Rate Disparities,’’ Personnel Psychology 56 (2003): 607–31.

72. Inman et al., ‘‘The Differential Effects.’’ 73. Culbertson and Rosenfeld, ‘‘Assessment of Sexual Harassment’’; T. C. Fain and

D. L. Anderton, ‘‘Sexual Harassment: Organizational Context and Diffuse Status,’’ Sex Roles 17 (1987): 291–311; M. Martindale, ‘‘Sexual Harassment in the Military: 1988,’’ Sociological Practice Review, 2 (1991): 200–216; Tangri et al., ‘‘Sexual Harassment at Work’’; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, ‘‘Sexual Harassment of Federal Workers’’; U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, ‘‘Sexual Harassment in the Federal Government.’’

74. A. Culbertson and W. Rodgers, ‘‘Improving Managerial Effectiveness in the Workplace: The Case of Sexual Harassment of Navy Women,’’ Journal of Applied Social Psychology 27 (1997): 1953–71.

75. Livingston, ‘‘Responses to Sexual Harassment’’; D. E. Terpstra and S. E. Cook, ‘‘Complainant Characteristics and Reported Behaviors and Consequences Associated with Formal Sexual Harassment Charges,’’ Personnel Psychology 38 (1985): 559–74; Gruber and Bjorn, ‘‘Women’s Responses to Sexual Harassment’’; L. Brooks and A. R. Perot, ‘‘Reporting Sexual Harassment: Exploring a Predictive Model,’’ Psychology of Women Quarterly 15 (1991): 31–57; A. B. Malamut and L. R. Offermann, ‘‘Coping with Sexual Harassment: Personal, Environmental, and Cognitive Determinants,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 86 (2001): 1152–66.

76. P. M. Popovich, ‘‘Sexual Harassment in Organizations,’’ Employee Responsi- bilities and Rights Journal 1 (1988): 273–82.

77. R. Niebuhr, ‘‘Sexual Harassment in the Military,’’ in W. O’Donohue, ed., Sexual Harassment: Theory, Research, and Treatment (Needham Heights, MA: Allyn and Bacon, 1997), pp. 250–62; L. R. Offermann and A. B. Malamut, ‘‘When Leaders Harass: The Impact of Target Perceptions of Organizational Leadership and Climate on Ha- rassment Reporting and Outcomes,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2002): 885–93; Pryor et al., ‘‘A Social Psychological Analysis.’’

78. Offermann and Malamut, ‘‘When Leaders Harass.’’ 79. M. E. Bergman, R. D. Langhout, P. A. Palmieri, L. M. Cortina, and

L. F. Fitzgerald, ‘‘The (Un)reasonableness of Reporting: Antecedents and Consequences of Reporting Sexual Harassment,’’ Journal of Applied Psychology 87 (2002): 230–42.

80. J. W. Adams, J. L. Kottke, and J. S. Padgitt, ‘‘Sexual Harassment of University Students,’’ Journal of College Student Personnel 24 (1983): 484–90; Fitzgerald et al., ‘‘The Dimensions and Extent’’; I. W. Jensen and B. A. Gutek, ‘‘Attributions and Assignment of Responsibility in Sexual Harassment,’’ Journal of Social Issues 38 (1982): 55–74.

81. Brooks and Perot, ‘‘Reporting Sexual Harassment’’; Malamut and Offermann, ‘‘Coping with Sexual Harassment’’; Bingham and Scherer, ‘‘Factors Associated with Responses.’’

82. Popovich, ‘‘Sexual Harassment in Organizations.’’ 83. M. De Judicibus and M. P. McCabe, ‘‘Blaming the Target of Sexual Harass-

ment: Impact of Gender Role, Sexist Attitudes, and Work Role,’’ Sex Roles 44 (2001): 401–17.

48 Legal, Psychological, and Power Issues

84. Wyatt and Riederle, ‘‘Sexual Harassment and Prior Sexual Trauma.’’ 85. M. P. Miceli and J. P. Near, ‘‘Individual and Situational Correlates of Whistle-

Blowing,’’ Personnel Psychology 41 (1988): 267–81; J. P. Near and M. P. Miceli, ‘‘Ef- fective Whistle-Blowing,’’ Academy of Management Review 20 (1995): 679–708; Gruber and Bjorn, ‘‘Women’s Responses to Sexual Harassment.’’

86. M. S. Harned, A. J. Ormerod, P. A. Palmieri, L. L. Collinsworth, and M. Reed, ‘‘Sexual Assault and Other Types of Sexual Harassment by Workplace Personnel: A Comparison of Antecedents and Consequences,’’ Journal of Occupational Health Psy- chology 7 (2002): 174–88.

87. Cortina et al., ‘‘Effects of Sexual Harassment across Cultures.’’ 88. Dietch et al., ‘‘Subtle yet Significant.’’ 89. Ilies et al., ‘‘Reported Incidence Rates.’’ 90. Bruce and Buchanan, ‘‘Group Differences.’’ 91. Shelton and Chavous, ‘‘Black and White College Women’s Perceptions.’’ 92. Dovidio et al., ‘‘Racial, Ethnic, and Cultural Differences’’; M. R. Lee, ‘‘Resil-

ience against Discrimination: Ethnic Identity and Other-Group Orientation as Protective Factors for Korean Americans,’’ Journal of Counseling Psychology 52 (2005): 36–44. See K. James, ‘‘Social Identity, Work Stress, and Minority Workers’ Health,’’ in G. P. Keita and J. J. Hurrell Jr., eds., Job Stress in a Changing Workforce: Investigating Gender, Diversity, and Family Issues (Washington, DC: American Psychological Association, 1994), pp. 127–45 for a review of social identity theory and how it relates to the expe- riences of racial discrimination at work.

93. Shupe et al., ‘‘The Incidence and Outcomes of Sexual Harassment.’’

Racial and Ethnic Harassment in the Workplace 49