Citation
Sexual harassment in higher education

Material Information

Title:
Sexual harassment in higher education ethnic and gender policy considerations
Creator:
Yamauchi, Elyse Mikiko
Publication Date:
Language:
English
Physical Description:
v, 79 leaves : forms ; 28 cm

Subjects

Subjects / Keywords:
Discrimination in higher education ( lcsh )
Sex discrimination in higher education ( lcsh )
Discrimination in higher education ( fast )
Sex discrimination in higher education ( fast )
Genre:
bibliography ( marcgt )
theses ( marcgt )
non-fiction ( marcgt )

Notes

Bibliography:
Includes bibliographical references (leaves 74-79).
General Note:
Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree, Master of Arts, Sociology.
General Note:
Department of Sociology
Statement of Responsibility:
Elyse Mikiko Yamauchi.

Record Information

Source Institution:
|University of Colorado Denver
Holding Location:
|Auraria Library
Rights Management:
All applicable rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.
Resource Identifier:
36419813 ( OCLC )
ocm36419813
Classification:
LD1190.L66 1996m .Y36 ( lcc )

Full Text
SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN HIGHER EDUCATION:
ETHNIC AND GENDER POLICY CONSIDERATIONS
by
Elyse Mikiko Yamauchi
B.A., University of Colorado, 1974
A thesis submitted to the
University of Colorado at Denver
in partial fulfillment
of the requirements of the degree of
Master of Arts
Sociology
1996
I


This thesis for the Master of Arts
degree by
Elyse Mikiko Yamauchi
has been approved
by
Date


Yamauchi, Elyse Mikiko (M.A., Sociology)
Sexual Harassment in Higher Education:
Ethnic and Gender Policy Considerations
Thesis directed by Professor Kjell Tornblom
ABSTRACT
Policies designed to address sexual harassment
complaints in higher education could be broadened to
consider more diverse ethnic and gender issues. Previous
studies have focused on sexual harassment situations
involving male harassers and female victims, without
considering ethnicity. In dontrast, the current study is
more extensive, as it examines sexual harassment
situations involving harassers and victims of both the
same and different gender, as well as ethnicity. Such an
examination could lead to recommendations to modify
policies and procedures to more adequately deal with
these types of sexual harassment complaints. A survey
study was developed in which college students responded
to one of sixteen vignettes describing situations in
which a student was sexually harassed by a professor.
Both the gender and ethnicity of the student and
professor was varied in the respective vignettes. A
total of 344 undergraduate students responded to
questions regarding evaluations of the behavior of the
professor and the student in the vignette. The results
revealed that in situations when the harasser was a male
rather than a female, or a black male rather than a white
male, or the victim was black rather than white,
judgments about the behavior of either the victim or the
harasser were influenced. In other comparisons of gender
and ethnicity, the predictions were significant in the
direction predicted.
This abstract accurately represents the content of the
candidate's thesis. I recommend its publication.
Signed
iii


CONTENTS
CHAPTER
1. INTRODUCTION................................1
2. EVALUATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT..............7
Factor 1: Characteristics of Raters...8
Factor 2: Characteristics of Victim...9
Factor 3: Characteristics of Harasser...14
Factor 4: Characteristics of Harasser
and Victim................................16
Gender Characteristics.................16
Ethnicity..............................17
3. RANK ORDERING OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
VIGNETTES...................................19
Assumptions for Rank Ordering of
Harassment Vignettes......................21
4. METHODS.....................................25
Participants...........................25
Materials..............................25
Vignette Technique in Sexual
Harassment Studies..................27
Measures...............................29
iv


5. RESULTS.....................................33
Evaluations of Sexual Harassment.........33
Characteristics of Victim.............34
Characteristics of Harasser...........38
Characteristics of Harasser
and Victim..........................42
Rank Ordering of Sexual Harassment
Vignettes............................. 45
Other Findings........................ 49
6. DISCUSSION..................................55
APPENDIX
A. VIGNETTES...................................65
B. CONSENT FORM, QUESTIONNAIRE, AND
DEBRIEFING SHEET.........................69
BIBLIOGRAPHY.......................,.................74
v


CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION
In the past decade, there has been an increase in
sexual harrassment complaints that have been filed not
only in work environments, but in universities and
colleges as well. Dzeich and Weiner (1984) extensively
researched this problem in academia. Of particular
concern in their study is the sexual harassment of a
student by a professor. A number of researchers have
shown that in a sexually harassing situation, such as in
a college or university setting, the harasser (e.g.,
professor) is in a very unique position with respect to
the victim (e.g., student), because the harasser can
exert power over the victim by means of sexual advances
(Malovich & Stake, 1990; Coles, 1986; Farley, 1978; Gutek
& Morasch, 1982; Benson & Thompson, 1982; Dzeich &
Weiner, 1984; Sandler, 1981). Compared with most
sexually harassed employees, students who are targets of
sexual harassment are less likely to seek remedies and
have very little power (Reilly, Carpenter, Dull, &
1


Bartlett, 1982). Students possess very little
institutional power because they occupy lower,
subordinate positions, they lack financial independence,
they have little material or emotional security to resist
sexual harassment and they tend to be more fearful of
reprisals (McKinney, Olson, & Satterfield, 1988; Tangri,
Burt, & Johnson, 1982).
The impact of sexual harassment has been more slowly
acknowledged in academia than in the work place (Malovich
& Stake, 1990). The following definition of sexual
harassment by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission
(1980:25024-25) is a work place definition that can be
translated into one that is suitable to an academic
setting:
Unwelcome sexual advances, requests for favors and
other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature
when submission to such conduct is made either
explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an
individual's employment; submission to or rejection
of such conduct by an individual is used as the
basis for employment decisions affecting the
individual, or such conduct has the purpose or
effect of unreasonably interfering with an
individual's work performance or creating an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive work
environment.
During the last decade, institutions of higher
education worked diligently to establish policies
designed to address sexual harassment complaints
2


(Livingston, 1982; Gutek, 1989), but these policies need
to be reviewed. Female targets of sexual harassment have
often felt that their complaints are not taken seriously
(Crull, 1982; Jensen & Gutek, 1982). Ethnic minorities
could potentially experience even greater barriers to
credibility because of biases against them (Fain &
Anderton, 1987). Males can be targets of sexual
harassment (Adams, Kottke, & Padgett, 1983; Sigal, Gibbs,
Belford, Ronan, & Gervasio, 1987), but they may be viewed
differently from women targets (Malovich & Stake, 1990;
Valentine-French & Radtke, 1989; Allen, Armstrong,
Clarin, & Velasquez, 1988, Mazer & Percival, 1989).
R. Roosevelt Thomas, Jr. (1992) poignantly
demonstrated that to manage diversity in educational and
employment settings, it is imperative to change policies
"beyond race and gender" issues. This means not in
isolation of each other, but together, incorporated
thoughtfully with other important issues.
Many organizations have made efforts to improve the
climate for women by establishing policies regarding
sexual harassment, and for minorities by establishing
policies regarding racial and ethnic discrimination
(Thomas, 1992). As educational institutions in the
3


United States approach the 21st Century, an increasingly
diverse work force will require that policies addressing
sexual harassment be broadened to incorporate diversity
issues. In other words, sexual harassment policies, like
other policies, may need to more effectively address race
and gender issues in novel ways. Potentially complex
issues could arise in sexual harassment cases involving
individuals of the same sex or different ethnicities.
Extensive research has been conducted by social
scientists on the subject of sexual harassment on college
campuses (Jones & Remland, 1992), while very little of
the research focuses on sexual harrassment involving
either persons of color or persons of the same sex. Most
of the literature considers white male harassers and
white female victims (Weber-Burdin & Rossi, 1982; Dzeich
& Weiner, 1984; Sigal, et al., 1987). One of the few
articles which considers sexual harassment of minorities
found that in some cases, federal minority employees were
sexually harassed at a higher percentage than white
employees (Fain & Anderton, 1987). Many studies conclude
that more research is needed to determine if there is a
difference in the way that sexual harassment cases
involving same sex individuals are viewed and judged
4


(Schneider, B., 1982; Valentine-French & Radtke, 1989;
Allen, et al., 1988; Malovich & Stake, 1990; Norris,
1991). It could also be elucidating to determine if
minorities involved in sexual harassment cases might be
judged differently as well.
Previous studies have examined raters7 perceptions
of the severity of sexual harassment situations (Summers,
1991; Malovich & Stake, 1990; Jones & Remland, 1992).
This thesis looks at some other factors, namely ethnicity
and gender, that may also affect such perceptions. More
specifically, this project examines whether the ethnicity
and gender of the victim as well as the perpetrator
influence raters7 judgments of the severity of sexual
harassment or the appropriateness of the behavior of the
harasser or the victim. Such an examination might
establish the need to incorporate multicultural issues
associated with ethnicity and sexual orientation into
policies governing sexual harassment in college settings.
Furthermore, improved procedures to handle sexual
harassment cases could be developed that consider
complaints involving both harassers and victims of the
same sex or different ethnic groups. By considering
these issues in a sensitive way, perhaps the negative
5


outcomes of sexual harassment complaints can be minimized
if such complaints are resolved in such a way that
neither harasser nor target feels victimized by a
cumbersome and insensitive process.
6


CHAPTER 2
EVALUATIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Research indicates that several factors could
potentially influence the evaluation or judgment by
raters/observers of sexual harassment incidents (Summers,
1991), such as: (1) the characteristics of the
raters/observers of the harassing incidents (Konrad &
Gutek, 1986; Malovich & Stake, 1990; Powell, 1986);
(2) the characteristics of the victim (Pryor & Day, 1988;
Valentine-French & Radtke, 1989); (3) the characteristics
of the harasser (Littler-Bishop, Siedler-Feller, &
Opalich, 1982; Popovich, Licata, Nokovich, Markell, &
Zoloty, 1986; Pryor & Day, 1988).
While the three factors mentioned above are of
interest to this study, a fourth factor has been
overlooked by researchers. This factor, the interaction
effects of the characteristics of gender and/or ethnicity
of both harasser and victim, will be taken into
consideration in this project. It is anticipated that
such characteristics studied simultaneously rather than
7


independently could result in divergent evaluations by
raters of the severity of sexual harassment or their
judgments regarding the appropriateness of the behavior
of either victim or harasser.
Factor 1: Characteristics of Raters
Several researchers have discovered differences in
observers' perceptions of what is considered as sexually
harassing behavior (Benson & Thompson, 1982; Collins &
Bladgett, 1981;. Gutek, 1985; Powell, 1986). Valentine-
French & Radtke (1989) and Allen, et al. (1988) found
that female raters attributed more blame to female than
male targets of sexual harassment, but males did not
generally attribute more blame to one gender over
another. Furthermore, males generally judge a situation
as sexually harassing on the basis of victim's behavior,
but females tend to make judgments based on the
harasser's behavior (Williams & Cyr, 1992). However,
females viewed certain social-sexual interactions such as
relentless requests for dates as sexual harassment while
males did not (Reilly, et al., 1982; Thomann & Wiener,
1987; Weber-Burdin & Rossi, 1982).
8


It is not the intent of this project to replicate
these studies. While this project does not dismiss the
importance of the characteristics of the raters, it will
place greater emphasis on the characteristics of both the
harasser and the victim. It is expected that the
interaction between these characteristics would influence
the assessment by raters of the degree of blame in a
sexual harassment situation. Therefore, the
characteristics of the raterrs, per se, will not be
examined at this time.
Factor 2: Characteristics of Victim
There is no clear agreement as to how the gender of
the victim affects perceptions of sexual harassment.
Summers (1991), for example, predicted that a complaint
of sexual harassment made by a woman would be evaluated
more negatively by raters if she possessed certain
characteristics. One of the characteristics that could
influence observers' negative perceptions is that the
woman possessed a "feminist orientation" (she belonged to
feminist organizations). Another characteristic, the
female victim's career aspirations were in competition
with those of the male harasser, could influence negative
9


perceptions about the victim. While her feminist
orientation had no signifcant effect on the rater's
negative perceptions, the victim's career aspirations had
a negative influence.
Other studies found that raters determined that the
characteristics of the female victim, such as
"provocative" attire or use of "heavy cosmetics" were
contributing factors to her being a target of sexual
harassment in the first plabe (Jensen & Gutek, 1983;
Pryor & Day, 1988; Workman & Johnson, 1992; Valentine-
French & Radtke, 1989). In other words, these particular
charactertistics were evaluated negatively, and she was
thought to have encouraged or caused the harassment.
Biases and stereotypical beliefs influence a rater's
judgment of the victim regarding blame for sexual
harassment (Workman & Johnson, 1991). Sexual harassment,
albeit different from sexual assault, shares some
similarities in that the perpetrator attempts to force
sexual attentions upon an unwilling victim (Jensen &
Gutek, 1982). Interestingly, some researchers found that
female victims of sexual assault were assigned greater
blame than male victims, due to a belief that females
should be better able to avoid a situation that is
10


potentially harmful, that they encouraged the assault, or
they were not being careful (Schneider, Soh-Chiew, &
Aronson, 1994). According to Williams and Cyr (1992),
negative perceptions based on gender may have
implications for "victim blame and attributions of
responsibility."
Nonetheless, there is still disagreement in the
studies regarding female victim blame for sexual
harassment. On one hand, when asked to respond to
vignettes in which male faculty harassed female students
or female faculty harassed male students, the gender of
the victim made no difference in perceptions of
observers' negative evaluations of. harassment (Valentine-
French & Radtke, 1989). In contrast, Jones and Remland
(1992) found that observers more often judged the
situation to be more harassing when the victim was female
rather than male. Furthermore, when negative or evasive
reactions by the female victim/target are made in
response to advances made by -the harasser, the situation
is judged to be more sexually harassing than if the
female target acted in a more friendly manner toward the
harasser.
11


As it appears that sexual harassment of women is
generally perceived to be more severe than harassment of
men, it is proposed that women's aversive reactions are
more legitimate than they are for men.
Hypothesis 1: Observers of sexual harassment
vignettes will more favorably judge the victim's
aversive reaction to a harasser's approach when the
victim is female than when the victim is male.
William Ryan (1976) presented the concept of
"blaming the victim" in his book by the same title,
stating that oppressed classes of people (such, as people
of color) were often blamed because they are victims.
Following recent incidents of police brutality, such as
the beating of both Rodney King in Los Angeles and the
killing of Malice Green in Detroit, Rome, Son, and Davis,
(1995) hypothesized that observers would assign lower
seriousness scores to excessive force used by police on
minorities than to non-minorities. Instead, they found
the complete opposite. Observers evaluated the
seriousness of the use of force by police significantly
higher when the victim is African American or Hispanic.
12


Based on these findings, it is believed that subjects
will display greater sympathy toward minority victims.
Hypothesis 2: Observers will more favorably judge a
victim's aversive reaction to a harasser's approach
when the victim is black than when the victim is
white.
Hypothesis 1 and Hypothesis 2 lead to the generation
of the following two corollaries:
Corollary 1: Observers will more favorably judge a
victim's aversive reaction to a harasser's approach
when the victim is a black female than when the
victim is a white female.
Corollary 2: Observers will more favorably judge a
victim's.aversive reaction to a harasser's approach
when the victim is a black male than when the victim
is a white male.
13


Factor 3: Characteristics of Harasser
Situations of sexual harassment will more likely be
judged in a negative way when the harasser7s intentions
seem hostile or insensitive to the feelings of the victim
(Williams & Cyr, 1992). Moreover, the harasser7s status
relative to the victim's may influence judgments of
observers about the severity of the harasser7s behavior
(Thomann & Wiener, 1991? Fain & Anderton, 1987; Gutek,
1985; Pryor, 1985; Reilly, et al., 1982; Littler-Bishop,
et al., 1982). Specifically, when a status imbalance
exists in favor of the harasser over the victim, the
situation is considered to be more severe (Thomann &
Wiener, 1991; Fain & Anderton, 1987). Behaviors that are
sexual in nature and indicate a requirement of academic
or work place success have been regarded as sexual
harassment (Powell, 1986). Status differences will lead
observers to judge the behavior of a male harasser more
harshly than a female harasser, and a white harasser more
harshly than a black harasser in sexual harassment
situations (Fain & Anderton, 1987; Dzeich & Weiner,
1984).
14


Hypothesis 3: Observers will more harshly judge a
harasser7s approach when the harasser is male than
when the harasser is female.
Hypothesis 4: Observers will more harshly judge a
harasser7s approach when the harasser is white than
when the harasser is black.
Subsequently, Hypothesis 3 and Hypothesis 4 lead to
the generation of the following two corollaries:
Corollary 3: Observers will more harshly judge a
harasser7s approach when the harasser is a white
male than a black male.
Corollary 4: Observers will more harshly judge a
harasser7s approach when the harasser is a white
female than a black female.
Many researchers have noted that judgments by
observers regarding the severity of an incident of sexual
harassment are based on the situation or context of the
incident and the behavior of both harasser and victim
15


(Jones & Remland, 1992; Konrad & Gutek, 1986; Reilly, et
al., 1982; Summers, 1991; Thomann & Wiener, 1987). It
might be even more elucidating to consider the
interaction effects involving both harasser and victim,
testing various combinations of gender and ethnicity,
while keeping constant the situation of sexual
harassment.
Factor 4; Characteristics of Harasser and Victim
Certain situations are considered to be more
harassing than others depending on the characteristics of
both the harasser and the target taken together. In
studies about police brutatlity, the degree of
seriousness attributed to police behavior in the incident
was a function of the entire interaction involving
characteristics and actions of the suspect and the police
officer (Rome, et al., 1995).
Gender Characteristics
Malovich and Stake (1990) surveyed the attitudes of
raters as they were asked to assign blame or judge
sexually harrassing behavior in a situation involving a
professor and a student. The authors concluded that
16


raters' judgments would be more negative when presented a
scenario where male students experience harassment from
male professors because this type of situation is out of
the norm. Also, males tend to feel complimented when
approached by a female as opposed to a male harasser.
Thus, it might be reasonable to believe that observers of
harassment would judge the harassment of same sex persons
differently from the harassment of opposite sex persons.
Hypothesis 5: Observers will more harshly judge the
harasser's approach and more favorably judge the
victim's aversive reaction when the harrasser and
victim are both males than when they are both
females.
Ethnicity
Jury studies of guilt in assault cases involving
black perpetrators and white victims have documented that
subjective evaluations of guilt by "mock jurors"
consistently "find black defendants [e.g., perpetrators]
guilty more often than white defendants in rape...trials,
especially if the victim is portrayed as being white"
(Pfeifer & Ogloff, 1991:1714; Gray & Ashmore, 1976;
17


McGlynn, Megas, & Benson, 1976; Ugwuegbu, 1979; Bernard,
1979; Field, 1979; Foley & Chamblin, 1982; Klein &
Creech, 1982). These findings seem to run contrary to
conclusions based upon other theoretical considerations
regarding power and status, as described in the next
section. According to those viewpoints, a hypothesis
that seems to run counter to the cited research may be
formulated as follows:
Hypothesis 6: Observers will more harshly judge a
white harasser's approach to a black victim than to
a white victim or a black harasser's approach to a
black victim; all of these situations will be judged
more harshly than a black harasser's approach to a
white victim.
18


CHAPTER 3
RANK ORDERING OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT VIGNETTES
Status differences based on age, education, race,
gender, and ethnicity, may influence sexual harassing
behavior. Based on this explanation, lower status
victims would be more likely than higher status victims
to be targets of sexual harassment. Because certain
groups occupy a lower status position in society, they
are more vulnerable to harassment and are more likely to
be victims.
Minorities are ascribed status groupings as they
enter organizations in roles such as student or worker,
according to Fain and Anderton (1987). Results of their
findings conclude that minorities are more likely than
non-minorities to experience sexual harassment in work or
academic settings. Perhaps minorities are viewed with
greater sympathy as well because of these status
differences.
If both victims and harassers are described in terms
of gender (female/male) and ethnicity (black/white),
19


sixteen possible combinations can be generated. It might
be useful to develop a rank ordering of the vignette
situations of harassment based on these possible
combinations of gender and ethnicity. If accurate, this
rank ordering could be used to predict observers7
evaluations of the severity of sexual harassment, and the
appropriateness of the behavior of the harasser and the
victim.
Table 3.1 is a matrix of all possible combinations
of harasser and victim (WM = white male, WF = white
female, BM = black male, BF = black female):
Table 3.1
Matrix of All Possible Combinations of Sexual Harassment
Vignettes For Males & Females by Black & White Race
HARASSER/ VICTIM WH WF BM BF
HH WM/WM WF/WM BH/WM WF/WM
WF WH/WF WF/WF BM/WF BF/WF
BM WM/BM WF/BM BH/BM BF/BM
BF WM/BF WF/BF BM/BF BF/BF
20


Assumptions for Rank Ordering of Harassment Vignettes
1. In situations of sexual harassment, it is assumed
that gender status carries greater weight than
ethnicity in assessing severity of sexual harassment
(Jones & Remland, 1992; Fain & Anderton, 1987).
2. Male status is higher than female status (Fain &
Anderton, 1987; Dzeich & Weiner, 1984).
3. White status is higher than black status (Fain &
Anderton, 1987).
4. It follows that males harassing females (inter-
gender) is more harassing than males harassing males
(intra-gender) in situations of sexual harassment
(Malovich & Stake, 1990).
5. It also follows that whites harassing blacks (inter-
racial) is more harassing than whites harassing
whites (intra-racial) in situations of sexual
harassment (Fain & Anderton, 1987).
6. The higher the harasser's status or the lower the
victim's status relative to one another, the more
severe the judgments about the harasser's actions.
Therefore, it is useful to make differential status
assignments for gender and ethnicity (Fain &
Anderton, 1987).
21


Based on the aforementioned assumptions, greater
numerical weights are assigned to high status harassers
(male or white) than to low status harassers (female or
black). Inter-gender and inter-racial harassment carries
greater weight than intra-gender and intra-racial
harassment as in Table 3.2 below:
Table 3.2
Numerical Scores Based on Assumptions for Rank Ordering
Sexual Harassment Vignettes Bv Race and Gender
1. Higher status harasser (male or white) = H = +1 Lower status harasser (female or black) = L = -1
2. Gender status: Hale = H = +2 Female = F = +1
3. Ethnic status: White = W = +2 Black = B = +1
4. Inter (-gender or -racial) = +2 Intra (-gender or -racial) = +1
Once numerical scores are assigned to harasser and
victim based on gender, race, and type of harassment
(inter-gender/racial or intra-gender/racial), a simple
hierarchy will emerge, as shown in Table 3.3.
22


Table 3.3
Numerical Score Assignments of Sexual Harassment
Situations Based on Race and Gender
1. Gender/Ethnicity Status
{Hale (+2) = (+1 X +2 = +2)
High (+1)X
{Shite (+1) = (+1 X +1 = +1)
.{Female (+2) = (-1 X +2 = -2)
Low (-l)X
{Black. (+1) = (-1 X +1 = -1)
2. Inter-Gender or Inter-Racial vs. Intra-Gender or Intra-Racial
{-Gender (+2X) = (+1 X +2 X +2 = +4)
Inter (+2)
{-Ethnic (+1X) = (+1 X +2 X +1 = +2)
High Status Harasser (+1X)
{-Gender (+2X) = (-1 X +1 X +2 = +2)
Intra (+1)
{-Ethnic (+1X) = (-1 X +1 X +1 = +1)
{-Gender (+2X) = (-1 X +2 X +2 = -4)
Inter (+2)
{-Ethnic (+1X) = (-1 X +2 X +1 = -2)
Low Status Harasser (-1X)
{-Gender (+2X) = (-1 X +1 X +2 = -2)
Intra (+1)
{-Ethnic (+1X) = (-1 X +1 X +1 = -1)
23


The resulting hierarchy of sexual harassment from
most to least harassing vignettes is shown in Table 3.4.
Table 3.4
Expected Hierarchy of Sexual Harassment Vignettes Based
on Total Numerical Score Assignments for Gender and Race
Harasser/Victim Tota] . Calculation
WM/BF = +12 [(+2 +1 - {-1 -2}) + (+2 +4)] = +12
WH/WF = +9 [(+2 +1 - {+1 -2}) + (+1 +4)] = +9
BH/BF = +7 [(-1 +2 - {-1 -2}) + (-1 +4)] = +7
WH/BH = +6 [(+2 +1 - {-1 +2}) + (+2 +2)] = +6
BM/WF = +4 [(-1 +2 - {+1 -2}) + (-2 +4)] = +4
WH/WM = +3 [(+2 +1 - {+1 +2}) + (+1 +2)] = +3
WF/BF = +2 [(+1 -2 - {-1 -2}) + (+2 -2)] = +2
BH/BH = +1 [(-1 +2 - {-1 +2}) + (-1 +2)] = +1
WF/WF = -1 [(+1 -2 - {+1 -2}) + (+1 -2)] = -1
BM/WM = -2 [(-1 +2 - (+1 +2}) + (-2 +2)] = -2
BF/BF = -3 [(-1 -2 - {-1 -2}) + (-1 -2)] = -3
WF/BM = -4 [(+1 -2 - {-1 +2}) + (+2 -4)] = -4
BF/WF = -6 [(-1 -2 - {+1 -2}) (-2 -2)] = -6
WF/WH = -7 [(+1 -2 - (+1 +2}) + (+1 -4)] = -7
BF/BH = -9 [(-1 -2 - {-1 +2}) + (-2 -4)] = -9
BF/WM = -12 [(-1 -2 - {+1 +2}) + (-2 -4)] = -12
Highest Total = Host Harassing
Lowest Total = Least Harassing
24


CHAPTER 4
METHODS
Participants
The rater/participant population consisted of 224
female and 120 male, 18 59 year-old undergraduates from
a large, urban, four-year public college from a variety
of majors in liberal arts classes. Approximately 66% of
the students were in the "freshman or sophomore"
category. They were unaware of the topic of the study
when they volunteered to participate, and completed
questionnaires were returned by all but two of the
students to whom the research materials were distributed.
Approximately 72% were White American, another 4% were
African American, 3% were American Indian, 14% were
Chicano/Hispanic/Latino American and 3% were Asian
American. There were 35% males and 65% females.
Materials
The participants, or raters, were randomly assigned
to respond to one of sixteen one-page vignettes. The
25


research design utilized for the factorial experiment was
a 2 (Gender of Harasser: male, female) x 2 (Gender of
Victim: male, female) x 2 (Race of Harasser: black,
white) x 2 (Race of Victim: black, white). The vignette
described a situation in which a student went to a
professor's office to discuss an upcoming assignment. To
avoid possible response biases associated with the term
"sexual harassment," the study was not described as a
harassment study; instead, the vignettes were entitled,
"Situation Regarding Informal Relationships" (See
APPENDIX A consisting of four representative examples).
Attached to each vignette was a survey entitled,
"Opinion information Sheet" and a cover page entitled,
"Project Description and Consent Form," on which the
instructions and consent for completion of the survey
were given (See APPENDIX B). After reading their
respective vignettes, the observers were asked to rate
the behavior of the professor and the student in the
vignette on the "Opinion Information Sheet" on the basis
of a 5-point bipolar (positive to negative) Likert-type
rating of eleven adjectives.
26


Vignette Technique in Sexual Harassment Studies
Rome, et al. (1995) noted that researchers utilize
the vignette technique as an effective tool for the study
of specific factors, such as seriousness of crime, that
may influence judgments of observers. In order to
determine how race influences the observer's judgment of
police misconduct, they varied this factor in vignettes.
Similar to these methods employed by Rome, et al.,
(1995), the vignette technique could be utilized by
manipulating the race (black/white) and sex (male/female)
of the harasser and victim to account for all possible
combinations, to determine if race and sex would
influence either negative or positive judgments of victim
or harasser behavior in sexual harassment situations, or
the severity of sexual harassment.
It has been argued that the vignette technique is an
effective means of studying "normative issues, especially
concerning intimate relationships to which it is
difficult to gain access in emprical study" (Finch,
1987:107). Vignettes are an efficient, effective and
inexpensive means of studying the reactions of observers
to sexual harassment situations that might otherwise be
prohibitive to research, both ethically and in terms of cost.
27


Based on the work of Adams, et al. (1983), which
discovered that individuals differ on how they define
more subtle incidents of sexual harassment, vignettes
were created involving a sexual harassment scenario
between a professor and student that was moderate, but
not extreme. It was believed that the use of a scenario
of a very severe and obvious example of sexual harassment
is more likely to result in harsher evaluations of the
harasser's behavior than a moderate example of sexual
harassment. It would be expected that more negative
evaluations would be made about the harasser#s behavior
and more positive evaluations would be made about the
victim's behavior. On the other hand, using an incident
of sexual harassment that was moderate would less likely
result in leading the observers to judge the behavior the
harasser in an extremely negative way.
Vignettes are widely used by researchers to measure
observers' responses to a situation of sexual harassment
(Pryor & Day, 1988; Summers, 1991; Tepstra & Baker, 1987;
Summers & Myklebust, 1992; Thomann & Wiener, 1987;
Malovich & Stake, 1990). Of particular interest to this
study and the model for the vignettes used herein, was
the vignette developed by Jones and Remland (1992) in
28


which a professor meets a student in the professor's
office to discuss an upcoming assignment. Among the
variables manipulated in their study were the gender of
the harasser and the victim, such that a female professor
harassed a male student and a male professor harassed a
female student. In their study, race was not mentioned.
A moderate situation of harassment was described in their
vignettes in which the professor placed a hand on the
student *s shoulder, hugged the student, commented on the
student's clothing, and asked to meet the student again.
While the current study utilized a similar vignette, the
sex as well as the race of the student and professor were
manipulated. Thus, sixteen possible outcomes resulted
from this manipulation.
Measures
After obtaining the necessary approvals from the
Human Subjects Committee and then gaining permission from
a variety of professors, questionnaires were administered
to students in undergraduate liberal arts classes of
moderate size. These classes consisted of Speech,
English, Sociology, History, and Political Science
classes.
29


The current study is based on the research of Jones
and Remland (1987), utilizing an expanded and modified
version of their vignette and questionnaire, as the
purpose of this thesis differs considerably from theirs.
In their study only the gender of both victim and
harasser was manipulated; in this thesis gender as well
as race were manipulated. Several details differ from
their vignette and questions were either modified or
added to their version of the questionnaire.
In the current thesis, observers were asked to
complete questionnaires designed to measure judgments
regarding the vignette they were randomly assigned.
Perceptions of the overall appropriateness of the
behavior of harasser (professor) and victim (student)
were measured using eleven bipolar, 5-point scales
describing the behavior of the professor as well as the
student, respectively. The participants were first asked
to rate the behavior of the professor, then the student,
in the incident along the following eleven scales ranging
from: considerate inconsiderate, sensitive -
insensitive, professional unprofessional, ethical -
unethical, appropriate inappropriate, fair unfair,
kind cruel, moral immoral, tasteful disgusting,
30


tolerable intolerable, and harmless harmful (5 =
extremely, 4 = somewhat, 3 = neither, 2 = somewhat, and 1
= extremely). Thus, if the rater felt that the behavior
of the professor or the student was extremely
insensitive, for example, a rating of "5" would be
assigned, and if the professor's or student's behavior
was rated as extremely sensitive, a score of "l" would be
given. Following their response to these questions, the
raters were asked the open ended question, "What
information in the incident affected your rating of the
student's [or the professor's] behavior?"
The raters' perceptions of the degree of harassment
were measured using a 5-point scale ranging from "not a
case of sexual harassment" to a "severe case of sexual
harassment." Perceptions of the degree of harm
experienced by the student were measured using a 5-point
scale ranging from "no harm" to "severe harm." Following
their evaluations of the degree of harm, the participants
were asked to explain the nature of harm they felt the
student may have suffered.
Additionally, the raters were asked open ended
questions regarding their opinions about what they would
have done in the situation, if the student deserved to be
31


treated as he/she was in the situation, if the professor
had the right to behave in that manner toward the
student, and what, if any, punishment the professor
should receive.
The participants were asked two additional open
ended questions. First, they were asked if they had
experienced sexual harassment, where it had occurred, a
description of the harasser, and how they had responded.
Second, they were asked if they had witnessed a situation
of sexual harassment, where it had occurred, a
description of the harasser, and how they had responded.
Finally, several demographic questions were included
to assess the characteristics of the participants: sex,
class rank, ethnicity, and age. In addition, the
participants were asked to answer the question, "What is
your attitude about homosexual relationships?" by
checking positive, negative, or neutral to determine
their attitudes toward homosexuals, as several of the
vignettes contained situations of sexual harassment
involving harassers and victims of the same gender.
32


CHAPTER 5
RESULTS
Evaluations of Sexual Harassment
The results of mean evaluations of harasser and
victim appropriateness for Hypothesis 1 through 6 and
Corollaries 1 through 4 are summarized in Tables 5.1
through Tables 5.10. An alpha test of .05 was used for
all statistical tests. To test each hypothesis, the
sixteen vignettes were grouped by sex of victim (male,
female), sex of harasser (male, female), race of victim
(black, white), race of harasser (black white), sex of
victim and harasser (maie/male, female/female) and race
of victim and harasser (white/white, white/black,
black/white, black/black). These results of mean totals
are relevant to the hypotheses, regarding evaluations of:
(1) victim behavior were in the mild to strongly
positive range (14-15); (2) harasser behavior were in
the moderate to strongly negative range (35-45); (3)
victim as compared to harasser behavior were in the
moderate range (21 -28).
33


Characteristics of Victim
Hypothesis 1 predicted that more favorable
judgments of the behavior of a female compared to a male
victim would be made when the victim spurns the
harasser's advances. A test for difference of means was
calculated for appropriateness of victim behavior by
victim gender (male, female). Eight of the sixteen
vignettes contained female victims and the other eight
contained male victims. The effect of victim gender,
though significant in the direction predicted, was not
statistically significant, F(l, 342) = .6105, p = .4351.
The results of mean evaluations are found in Table 5.1.
Table 5.1
Mean Evaluations of Appropriateness of Behavior of Male
and Female Sexual Harassment Victims
Victim Gender M SD n
Hale 14.7225 5.8641 173
Female 15.2164 5.8576 171
F = .6105
34


Hypothesis 2 predicted that more favorable judgments
of the behavior of a black rather than a white victim
would be made when the victim spurns the harasser's
advances. A test for differences of means was calculated
for appropriateness of victim behavior by victim race
(black, white). Eight of the vignettes contained black
victims and eight contained white victims. The effect of
victim race was statisically significant, F(1,342) =
5.0596, p = .0251. Results of mean evaluations are
summarized in Table 5.2
Table 5.2
Mean Evaluations of Appropriateness of Behavior of Black
and White Sexual Harassment Victims
Victim Race £ SD 2
White 15.6784 6.2230 171
Black < .05 F = 14.2659 5.0596* 5.3991 173
35


Corollary 1 predicted that more favorable judgments
of the behavior of a black female victim than a white
female victim would be made when the victim spurns the
harasser's advances. A test for difference of means was
calculated for appropriateness of victim behavior by
female victim race (black, white). Four of the vignettes
contained black female victims and four contained white
female victims. The effect of female victim race, though
significant in the direction predicted, was not
statistically significant, F(1,171) = 1.2958, p = .2566.
Results of mean evaluations are summarized in Table 5.3.
Mean Evaluations of Appropriateness of Behavior of
Black Female and White Female Sexual Harassment Victims
Table 5.3
Female Victim Race M
SD
n
Black
White
14.2184
15.2326
5.3384
6.3425
87
86
F = 1.2958
36


Corollary 2 predicted that more favorable judgments
of the behavior of a black male victim than a white male
victim would be made when the victim spurns the
harasser's advances. A test for difference of means was
calculated for appropriateness of victim behavior by male
victim race (black, white). Four of the vignettes
contained black male victims and four contained white
male victims. The effect of male victim race was
statistically significant, F(1,169) = 4.1832, p = .0424.
Results of mean evaluations are listed in Table 5.4.
Table 5.4
Mean Evaluations of Appropriateness of Behavior of
Black Male and White Male Victims
Hale Victim Race S SD n
Black 14.3140 5.4907 86
White 16.1294 6.1038 85
F = 4.1832*
*g < .05
37


Characteristics of Harasser
Hypothesis 3 predicted that the behavior of the
harasser will be judged more harshly when the harasser is
male than when the harasser is female. A test for
difference of means was calculated for appropriateness of
harasser behavior by harasser gender (male, female).
Eight of the vignettes contained female harassers and
eight contained male harassers. The effect of harasser
gender was statistically sighificant, F(1,342) = 13.6016,
E = 0003. Results of mean evaluations are found in Table
5.5.
. Table 5.5
Mean Evaluations of Appropriateness of Sexual Harassment
Behavior of Male and Female Harassers
Harasser Gender H SD n
Hale 42.1724 5.7223 174
Female 39.5647 7.3129 170
F = . 13.6016*
*E < .05
38


Hypothesis 4 predicted that the behavior of the
harasser will be judged more harshly when the harasser is
white than when the harasser is black. A test for
differences of means was calculated for appropriateness
of harasser behavior by harasser race (black, white).
Eight of the vignettes contained black harassers and
eight contained white harassers. The effect of harasser
race, though significant in the direction predicted, was
not statistically significant, F(1,342) = .0171, p =
.9256. Results of mean evaluations are summarized in
Table 5.6.
Table 5.6
Mean Evaluations of Appropriateness of Sexual Harassment
Behavior of White and Black Harassers
Harasser Race H SD n
Black 40.8291 5.9289 170
White 43.4080 6.6868 174
F = .0171
39


Corollary 3 predicted that the behavior of the
harasser will be judged more harshly when the harasser is
a white male than when the harasser is a black male. A
test for difference of means was calculated for
appropriateness of male harasser behavior by male
harasser race (black, white). Four of the vignettes
contained black male harassers and four contained white
male harassers. The effect of male harasser race, though
significant in the direction predicted, was not
statistically significant, F(1,172) = .0342, p = .8535.
Results of mean evaluations are shown in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7
Mean Evaluations Of Appropriateness of Sexual Harassment
Behavior of White Male and Black Male Harassers
Hale Harasser Race H SD n
Black 42.0920 . 6.8380 87
White 42.2529 4.3701 87
F = .0342
40


Corollary 4 predicted that the behavior of the
harasser will be judged more harshly when the harasser is
a white female than when the harasser is a black female.
A test for difference of means was calculated for female
harasser behavior by female harasser race (black, white).
Four of the vignettes contained black female harassers
and four contained white female harassers. The effect of
female harasser race, though significant in the direction
predicted, was not statisically significant, F(1,168) =
.0000, p = .9978. Results of mean evaluations are listed
in Table 5.8.
Table 5.8
Mean Evaluations of Appropriateness of Sexual Harassment
Behavior of White Female and Black Female Harassers
Feiale Harasser Race M SD n
Black 39.5663 5.0199 83
White 39.5632 9.0035 87
F = .0000
41


Characteristics of Harasser and Victim
Hypothesis 5 predicted that: (1) the behavior of
the harasser will be judged more harshly, and (2) the
behavior of the victim will be judged more favorably, if:
(a) the harasser and the victim are both males, than
(b) they are both females. A test for difference of
means was calculated for appropriateness of harasser
behavior versus victim behavior by same sex harassment.
Four of the vignettes contained male harassers with male
victims and four contained female harassers with female
victims. The effect for same sex harasser and victim,
though significant in the direction predicted, was not
statistically significant, F(1,169) = 1.8980, p = .1701.
Results of mean evaluations are summarized in Table 5.9.
Table 5.9
Mean Evaluations of Appropriateness of Sexual Harassment
Behavior of Same Gender Harassers and Victims
Harasser/Victim Sex M SD n
Hale/Hale 27.1628 10.3263 86
Female/Female 24.8706 11.4099 85
F = 1.8980
42


Hypothesis 6 predicted that if: (l) the harasser is
white and the victim is black, rather than (2) the
harasser is white and the victim is white, or (3) the
harasser is black and the victim is black, then: (a) the
behavior of the harasser will be judged more harshly, and
(b) the behavior of the victim will be judged more
favorably.
Compared to all of these situations, there will be
even greater difference in evaluations of the behavior of
the harasser and the behavior of the victim if the
harasser is black and the victim is white. An ANOVA was
calculated for appropriateness of harasser behavior
versus victim behavior by all combinations of race of
harasser and victim (white/white, white/black,
black/black, and black/white). There were four vignettes
for each combination. The effect for mixed race
situations of sexual harassment though significant in the
direction predicted, was not statistically significant.
F(3, 340) = 2.0710, p = .1038. Results of mean
evaluations are shown in Table 5.10.
43


Table 5.10
Mean Evaluations of Appropriateness of Sexual Harassment
Behavior of Mixed and Same Race Harassers and Victims
Harasser/Victim Race K SD n
White/White 23.8023 12.1004 86
White/Black 27.5341 9.7756 88
Black/Black 26.7529 11.3902 85
Black/Bhite 25.5412 8.3731 85
F = 2.0710
Rank Ordering of Sexual Harassment Vignettes
Each of the sixteen vignettes represented a
different scenario in which the professor (harasser)
could be either black or white, and male or female, and
the student (victim) could be either black or white, and
male or female. In order to determine whether there was
a difference in the way the observers judged the behavior
of the professor and the student in the sixteen vignettes
based on race and gender, a difference of means was
calculated for each possible pairing of the vignettes.
To accomplish this, the mean ratings for the student's
behavior were subtracted from the mean ratings of the
professor's behavior in each vignette. The respective
vignettes were the independent variables and the
44


difference of means ratings were the dependent variables
Utilizing a test for difference of means, no two groups
were found to be significantly different at the .05
level. Table 5.13 shows that while there was some
agreement among the methods used to compare vignettes,
there was exact agreement with the expected rank order
hierarchy in three places: (1) a white male harassing a
black female resulted in the highest difference of means
scores of the 16 vignettes, (2) a white male harassing a
white male resulted in the sixth highest difference, and
(3) a white female harassing a black female resulted in
the seventh highest difference. The rank ordering
results for the comparison between harasser and victim
appropriateness evaluations are in Table 5.11.
45


Table 5.11
Rank Ordering: Difference of Mean Evaluations of
Harassment Behavior Appropriateness of Harasser & Victim
Vianette H SD n
WH/BF 29.2727 07.6605 22
BM/BH 29.2381 15.0263 21
BM/RF 28.5909 07.2286 22
BH/BF 28.2273 07.3156 22
WH/BH 28.0000 07.4194 22
WH/WH 27.9048 07.8861 21
RF/BF 27.7727 14.6902 22
RM/WF 25.9091. 08.8367 22
BF/BH 25.4762 11.5179 21
BF/RH 25.1500 08.8987 20
RF/BH 25.0909 07.5272 22
BF/WF 24.7143 07.8367 21
BF/BF 24.0000 10.5688 21
BM/RM 23.6364 09.1472 22
RF/HF 22.8571 11.5208 21
HF/RH 18.6818 16.7058 20
In addition to calculating the difference of means
between the evaluations of the professor's and the
student's behavior for each vignette, separate means of
the evaluations of the degree of sexual harassment were
calculated. The results of this rank ordering of means
is fairly similar to those in Table 5.11. Total
agreement exists between the Tables 5.11 and 5.12 in
these two places: (1) a black female harassed a white
male, 10th most harassing of 16 vignettes, and
46


(2) a white female harassed a white male, the least
harassing. It is notable that in this rank ordering, the
four sexual harassment vignettes involving males
harassing males occupied the top four places: (1) a
white male harasser and a white male victim, (2) a white
male harasser and a black male victim, (3) a black male
harasser and a black male victim, and (4) a black male
harasser and a white male victim. Judgments regarding
the degree of harassment and the appropriateness of
harasser and victim behavior were somewhat similar in
these comparisons, with a few strong differences. The
mean evaluations for degree of harassment are shown in
Table 5.12.
47


Table 5.12
Rank Ordering: Mean Evaluations of Degree of Harassment
Vianette M SB n
WM/WK 3.8571 .9636 21
WM/BM 3.5909 1.0075 22
BM/BM 3.5714 1.2873 21
BH/WH 3.4091 1.0538 22
BM/WF 3.4091 .9081 22
WF/BH 3.3636 .9021 22
WM/WF 3.3182 .9455 22
WF/BF 3.3182 1.0414 22
WM/BF 3.2727 .9351 22
BF/WH 3.1500 .8127 20
WF/WF 3.0952 1.2209 21
BF/BF 3.0952 1.0911 21
BM/BF 3.0909 .9715 22
BF/WF 3.0000 1.0000 21
BF/BH 3.0000 1.1832 21
WF/WH 2.9091 1.1509 22
In several places, the vignette rankings in Tables
5.11 and 5.12 demonstrated high agreement with each other
and as compared with the expected rank ordering hierarchy
in Table 3.4 (SEE Table 5.13).
48


Table 5.13
Comparison of Expected Rank Order Hierarchy of Sexual
Harassment Vignettes With Results of Tables 5.11 & 5.12
Expected Ranking
Table 5.11 Ranking
Harasser Behavior
Table 5.12 Ranking
Degree of Harassment
1 WK/BF 1 9
2 WH/WF 8 7
3 BH/BF 4 13
4 WH/BM 5 2
5 BM/WF 3 5
6 WH/WH 6 1
7 WF/BF 7 8
8 BM/BK 2 3
9 WF/WF 15 11
10 BM/HM 14 4
11 BF/BF 13 12
12 WF/BH 11 13
13 BF/WF 12 14
14 WF/BH 16 16
15 BF/BH 9 15
16 BF/WH 10 10
Other Findings
When the participants were asked to evaluate the
degree of sexual harassment in the vignettes, their
answers are as follows: 5.20% said it was not a case of
sexual harassment; 46.02% said it was either a mild or
moderate case; 47.69% said it was either a strong or
severe case.
49


When asked to what extent they felt the student was
harmed by the professor's behavior, 7.23% said there was
no harm; 60.12% indicated either mild or moderate harm;
32.37% said either strong or severe harm. Following this
guestion, they were asked to explain the nature of the
harm suffered if they indicated that the student suffered
moderate to severe harm. In response to this question,
57.80% indicated that the student suffered some type of
emotional harm; 30.92 indicated either- no or mild harm in
the last question and were not required to respond; the
remainder gave other answers, such as it depends, not
sure, etc.
Several additional open ended questions were asked.
The open ended questions and answers are as follows:
1. "What information in the incident affected your
rating of the professor's behavior?" In response to this
question, 78.62% of the observers felt that their rating
was influenced by the professor's actions and verbal
remarks, while the rest cited other factors, such as
attitude toward the student.
2. "What information in the incident affected your
rating of the student's behavior?" With regard to this
question, 76% responded that the student's actions and
50


verbal responses influenced their rating, while the rest
were affected by the student's attitude.
3. "What would you have done if you were the
student in this situation?" Of the responses, 39.88%
said they would do exactly what the student in the
vignette did, 30.92% stated that they would report the
professor, 15.90% said they would talk to the professor
further to clarify his or her intentions, and the
remainder stated that they Would think about taking any
action or else wait to see if it happened again.
4. "Do you think the student deserved to be treated
as described in the incident?" In response to this
question^ 93.95% answered "no".
5. "In the position of professor, do you think the
professor had the right (was the professor entitled) to
behave in the manner described toward the student?" Of
the responses, 93.64% stated "no", paralleling the
responses to the previous question.
6. "Do you think the professor should be punished?
If you answered, yes, briefly explain the nature and
extent of the punishment that should be given; if you
answered no, explain why not." Although 60.12% of the
students felt that the degree of harm to the student was
51


mild to moderate, 34.39% felt the professor should be
fired, 19.65 stated that the professor should be punished
without naming a specific punishment, and 26.30% felt
that the professor should be reprimanded or warned.
7. "Have you ever been sexually harassed?" In
response to this question, 61.85% said they had not and
30.64% said that they had. Participants were harassed in
a variety of situations, such as at work, in the high
school, and in college; by a variety of individuals, such
as coworkers, supervisors, teachers, and fellow students.
Most situations were described as involving a white male
harassing a white female.
8. "Have you witnessed a situation of sexual
harassment?" The responses this question were: 68.21%
said they had, while 18.79% said that they had not.
9. Responses to the question, "What is your
attitude about homosexuals?" are as follows: 15.90% were
positive, 31.50% were negative, and 51.45% were neutral.
After testing the hypotheses in this study, several
other possible combinations of harasser and victim were
tested for statistical significance. ANOVA tests
utilized an alpha test of .05. A few combinations were
significant.
52


First, an analysis was made regarding judgments of
the appropriateness of harasser behavior by harasser
gender (male, female) in combination with the
appropriateness of victim behavior when the victim is
male. In comparing the evaluations of the
appropriateness of the harasser's behavior (male or
female) to the evaluations of the appropriateness of male
victim behavior, the mean evaluations for victim
appropriateness were subtracted from those for harasser
appropriateness. The resulting mean difference was
compared by gender. In comparisons of appropriateness of
harasser behavior as compared with victim behavior, the
effect of harasser gender was significant, F = 4.5177, p
= .0350. Therefore, the raters displayed more
disapproval of the behavior of a male than a female
harasser and greater victim approval when the victim was
male.
Second, as compared with the above mentioned method,
a similar analysis was made regarding judgments of the
appropriateness of harasser only behavior by harasser
gender when the victim is male. The appropriateness of
victim behavior was not considered here. The effect of
harasser gender with a male victim was significant, F =
53


13.6683, p = .0003. Therefore, the raters displayed more
disapproval of the harasser's approach to a male victim,
when the harasser was a male harasser rather than a
female harasser.
Third, an analysis was made regarding judgments of
appropriateness of victim aversive behavior by female
victim race when the harasser is a white male. The
effect of race for a female victim race was significant,
F = 4.0443, p = .0508. Therefore, raters displayed
greater approval of a black female victim rather than a
white female victim when either was harassed by a white
male.
Finally, an analysis was made regarding judgments of
appropriateness of harasser behavior when the victim is a
white male compared with a black female. The effect of
race and sex (a white male victim compared with a black
female victim) was significant, F = 7.3806, p = .0080.
Therefore, raters displayed greater disapproval of any
harasser (e.g., black, white, male, female) when the
victim was a black female rather than a white male.
54


CHAPTER 6
DISCUSSION
The results of this study indicate that observers of
sexual harassment situations will evaluate: (1) the
behavior of the harasser more harshly when the harasser
is male rather than female, (2) the behavior of a white
male harasser more harshly than a black male, and (3) the
behavior of the victim more favorably if the victim is
black rather than white. Of the six hypotheses and four
corollaries that were tested, Hypothesis 2, Corollary 2,
and Hypothesis 3 were statistically significant.
Although there was no significant difference in
observers' evaluations of the appropriateness of harasser
as compared with victim behavior in same sex (male/male
and female/female) harassment vignettes, some interesting
findings emerged regarding same sex harassment vignettes.
In comparison to all other vignettes, observers
determined that the four most sexually harassing
vignettes were the four vignettes involving male
harassers and male Victims.
Furthermore, in contrast to the hypotheses which
examined the appropriateness of victim and harasser
55


behavior, there were no differences in evaluations of the
degree of sexual harassment when a black harasser was
compared with a white harasser, regardless of the
harasser's gender. Likewise, there were no differences
in evaluations of the degree of sexual harassment when
comparing male and female victims, regardless of the
victim's race.
From the results, a few general conclusions can be
made regarding gender and ethnicity: (1) observers are
more negative toward male harassers than female
harassers, particularly when the male harassers are
white, (2) they tend to be more sympathetic toward black
victims than white victims, and (3) observers find same
sex harassment more troubling when the harassment
involves two males rather than two females.
In addition to the hypotheses and corollaries, it
was predicted that a rank ordering of the vignettes would
emerge from most to least sexually harassing based on:
(1) the raters' judgments of the behavior of the victim
(student) and the harasser (professor), and (2) the
raters' evaluations of the degree of sexual harassment.
Assumptions were made about status difference based on
race and gender. As a result, the lower the status of
56


the victim with respect to the harasser, the more
harassing the situation, as discussed earlier. The
expected rank ordering was tested in two ways.
The first test was made by comparing the difference
of mean evaluations for appropriateness of the
professor's behavior as compared with the student's
behavior across all sixteen vignettes. A rank ordering
of mean differences did not exactly agree with the
predicted rank ordering, except for total agreement about
the most harassing situation involving a white male
harasser and a black female victim. However there was
general agreement in several places as shown previously
in Table 5.13.
The second test was made by comparing mean
evaluations for degree of sexual harassment across all
sixteen vignettes. Again, the rank ordering did not
precisely agree with the expected rank ordering nor with
the difference of means rank ordering, but Table 5.13
shows some general agreement across all comparisons in
the latter rankings, especially 11th through 16th most
serious. Vignettes involving female harassers were
expected to be ranked lower and the findings supported
this prediction, as did the findings in Hypothesis 1.
57


From this portion of the study the most troubling
sexual harassment situations with respect to harasser and
victim behavior appropriateness involved a white male
harasser and a black female victim. The general
consensus that a white male harasser is viewed more
harshly than black or female harassers may be attributed
to status differences mentioned previously, particularly
education, race and gender. Lower status targets of
sexual harassment are more likely to be perceived as
victims in general. This finding is supported by the
research that observers found the seriousness of
assaultive behavior toward minorities to be significantly
higher than for non-minorities (Rome, et al, 1995). It
appears that minorities are viewed with greater sympathy
because of these status differences and because white
males are viewed as possessing the most power and status.
It would follow that the lower the status of the victim
with respect to the harasser, the more harassing the
situation. It should be noted that observers ranked the
vignettes involving black males harassing white females
very closely with the predicted ranking (third and fifth,
respectively, as compared with the predicted ranking of
fifth most serious). It would be interesting to present
58


a similar study in other regions, such as the southern
United States, to see if there are differences in the way
southerners and northerners evaluate the mixed race
vignettes.
With respect to degree of sexual harassment,
observers found the most troubling situations to involve
males harassing males, as mentioned earlier. There are a
number of possible explanations for these results.
Female harassers are generally judged less harshly than
male harassers, which supports earlier research (Jones &
Remland, 1992). There appears to be less tolerance of
same sex harassment involving males rather than females.
This might be because men are not likely to be viewed as
targets of harassment, and when a male is the harasser of
another male, this type of situation is much less
palatable. Research regarding the general acceptance of
lesbian as opposed to fiomosexual male relationships could
explain some of these differences. The more recent media
attention that has been paid to male homosexual
relationships may not have improved the acceptance of
such relationships. These issues are beyond the scope of
this project, but generate further research questions.
59


Perhaps a conclusion could be drawn that the results
will depend on the type of empirical study being
utilized. Different methods may have slightly different
results. In this particular study, the overall general
agreement in the rank order comparisons lends more
credibility to the results. Researchers should note that
it would be useful and important to test hypotheses using
several different methods, as the final results could
have much great variation, making it difficult to draw
valid conclusions.
The vignette technique proved to be a very effective
tool in eliciting responses from the observers to a
variety of sexual harassment situations. The vignettes
were relevant enough to elicit an emotional response from
one of the participants. After reading the vignette and
survey, one student, who was unable to continue, asked
not to complete the survey. She stated that she had
experienced a similar situation, and reading the vignette
upset her. It appears then, that vignettes are
legitimate stimuli to study normative, attitudinal
responses. They can be persuasive enough that observers
will take them seriously.
60


A number of limitations seem to have emerged from
this study. One reason there were not statistically
significant findings for some of the predictions might be
due to the relatively small samples for each vignette (20
- 22). Perhaps a study could be done with a few,
specific vignettes, such as same sex harassment
vignettes, or black and white victim harassment
vignettes, and with a sample that is twice as large. The
vignettes could be changed so that the situations of
sexual harassment occur in the work place, or in the
classroom, or in a social setting, such as a bar. Very
different results are likely to emerge.
In addition, only students were asked to respond.
If faculty were surveyed as well other adults outside of
higher education, the results might be different.
Furthermore, there are deficiencies in every survey
process. According to Denzin (1970:182), "The ideal
survey would involve repeated observations." Portions of
the study could be replicated a number of times and with
new methods to test some of the more interesting
findings. The participants in the current study were
undergraduate students taken from one institution of
higher education out of three sharing the same campus.
61


The other institutions are a community college and a
university. It would be interesting to expand the study
to encompass these students to determine if there are
differences in the responses of differentially upwardly
mobile students (community college as compared to
undergraduate as compared to graduate students).
Nonetheless, the vignette technique and accompanying
survey utilized in this project has been an efficient
means of collecting data from a fairly large population.
The divergent findings generated from this research
project have led to a myriad of interesting problems for
further research. It would be useful to consider the
wording of future survey questions and the accompanying
vignettes in order to obtain other types of responses.
It would be very interesting to specifically survey
reactions to sexual harassment vignettes involving two
males. Through the collection of such a large amount of
data, this study is fertile ground for the generation of
additional studies and research questions.
Many theoretical frameworks could explain some of
the findings. Further studies which replicate this
project could more closely examine theories regarding
status, power, social distance and attribution (both
62


internal and external causes) to seek explanations for
the intriguing results.
As applied research is driven by policy, questions
concerning the effectiveness of sexual harassment
policies arise. The individuals responsible for the
development and administration of these policies, who
hear sexual harassment complaints and ultimately resolve
them, should be aware that observers look at sexual
harassment complaints differently.
Some questions that arise are: (1) Would
administrators view and resolve a sexual harassment
complaint involving a female harasser and a male victim
in a different manner? (2) Are males more reluctant to
file sexual harassment complaints because they would not
be taken seriously, or because of shame that they were
not strong enough to resist an advance, particularly from
another male? (3) Why is a white male harassing another
male considered to be more serious than a black male
harassing another male, and why are males harassing males
considered to be more serious than other situations of
harassment? (4) Is it unlikely that a black female
would harass a white male and why is it considered to be
more harassing than a black female harassing a black male
63


or a white female harassing a white male? (5) Is it
possible that college administrators would crack down
harder on a white male harasser than any others and be
more sympathetic toward a black victim? (6) Are there
valid reasons why there are perceptions that blacks are
more likely to be victimized and treated unfairly than
whites? (7) Could perceptions that one group of
harassers or victims would be treated differently when
resolving a sexual harassment complaint lead to the
reluctance on the part of a victim to file a claim?
There is a definite need to improve current policies
and procedures for handling harassment complaints. Often
the process is too cumbersome and the outcome is not
satisfactory to both the victim and the harasser. In
many instances, they both become victimized by the
process. Future harassment complaints could be resolved
in a more effective and just way by training the college
administrators responsible for resolving the complaints
to consider their own personal biases. It is important
for college and university administrators to be aware
that there are potential ethnic and gender policy
considerations to be made regarding sexual harassment in
higher education.
64


APPENDIX A
VIGNETTES
SITUATION REGARDING INFORMAL RELATIONSHIPS
The following interaction involves Dr. Frank Thomas, who is a professor, and Susan, a student in his introductory
history class. Dr. Thomas is white and Susan is black. Susan has scheduled a meeting with Dr. Thomas on Monday
afternoon in his office to get help on an upcoming assignment.
Susan approached Dr. Thomas' office for their scheduled appointment to talk about the upcoming paper he assigned. In
response to Susan's knock on his office door, Dr. Thomas told Susan to enter. As Susan came in, Dr. Thomas looked up
from his desk, smiled and told her to have a seat.
Susan sat across from Dr. Frank Thomas' desk and said, "I've been trying to figure out how to organize this paper.
I'm having some trouble and I want to get a good grade on this paper and in this class."
Dr. Thomas rose from his desk, smiled, glanced at Susan's breasts, and walked behind Susan's chair. He rested his hand
on her shoulder and said, "I'm glad you are interested in doing well. I'm sure we'll be able to work things out."
Susan swayed to the right to avoid his hand. He pulled a chair next to hers and sat down, stating, "Why don't you tell
me exactly what you want help.with." Susan affirmed, "I want help with the organization of lie paper." Dr. Frank
Thomas reached over and took Susan's hand, saying, "You know, I think you are a very special person, Susan. I'm glad
we'll have a chance to work more closely. Let's plan on meeting a couple of evenings this week."
Susan gathered her books and papers together and rapidly stood up. "I don't think I want your help under these
circumstances. I can get a good grade on the merits of my paper." Dr. Thomas stood up and put his arm around Susan's
shoulders. "Now, Susan, I'm here to help you." He squeezed her an and smiled, "By the way, that sweater looks really
nice on you." Susan pushed him away and ran for the door. Dr. Frank Thomas called to her, "I'll be here until 5:00.
Let me know if you're interested in working together." Susan quickly replied, as she left the office, "Sorry, but I
don't think I'm interested."
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THE FOLLOWING THREE-PAGES OF THE OPINION INFORMATION SHEET IN TERMS OF YOUR REACTION
TO THIS INCIDENT.
65


SITUATION REGARDING INFORMAL RELATIONSHIPS
The following interaction involves Dr. Sally Thomas, who is a professor, and Susan, a student in her introductory
history class. Dr. Thomas is white and Susan is white. Susan has scheduled a meeting with Dr. Thomas on Monday
afternoon in her office to get help on an upcoming assignment.
Susan approached Dr. Thomas' office for their scheduled appointment to talk about the upcoming paper she assigned.
In response to Susan's knock on her office door, Dr. Thomas told Susan to enter. As Susan came in, Dr. Thomas looked
up from her desk, smiled and told her to have a seat.
Susan sat across from Dr. Sally Thomas' desk and said, I've been trying to figure out how to organize this paper.
I'm having some trouble and I want to get a. good grade on this paper and in this class."
Dr. Thomas rose from her desk, smiled, glanced at Susan's breasts, and walked behind Susan's chair. She rested her
hand on Susan's shoulder and said, "I'm glad you are interested in doing well. I'm sure we'll be able to work things
out." Susan swayed to the right to avoid Dr. Thomas' hand. She pulled a chair next to Susan's and sat down, stating,
"Why don't you tell me exactly what you want help with." Susan affirmed, "I want help with the organization of the
paper." Dr. Sally Thomas reached over and took Susan's hand, saying, "You know, I think you are a very special person,
Susan. I'm glad we'll have a chance to work more closely. Let's plan on meeting a couple of evenings this week."
Susan gathered her books and papers together and rapidly stood up. "I don't think I want your help under these
circumstances. I can get a good grade on the merits of my paper." Dr. Thomas stood up and put her arm around Susan's
shoulders. "Now, Susan, I'm here to help you." Dr. Thomas squeezed Susan's arm and smiled, "By the way, that sweater
looks really nice on you." Susan pushed her away and ran for the door. Dr. Sally Thomas called to Susan, "I'll be
here until 5:00. Let me know if you're interested in working together." Susan quickly replied, as she left the
office, "Sorry, but I don't think I'm interested."
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THE FOLLOWING THREE PAGES OF THE OPINION INFORMATION SHEET IN TERMS OF YODR REACTION
TO THIS INCIDENT.
66


SITUATION REGARDING INFORMAL RELATIONSHIPS
The following interaction involves Dr. Frank Thomas, who is a professor, and Steven, a student in his introductory
history class. Dr. Thomas is black and Steven is white. Steven has scheduled a meeting with Dr. Thomas on Monday
afternoon in his office to get help on an upcoming assignment.
Steven approached Dr. Thomas' office for their scheduled appointment to talk about the upcoming paper he assigned.
In response to Steven's knock on his office door, Dr. Thomas told Steven to enter. As Steven came in, Dr. Thomas
looked up from his desk, smiled and told him to have a seat.
Steven sat across from Dr. Frank Thomas' desk and said, "I've been trying to figure out how to organize this paper.
I'm having some trouble and I want to get a good grade on this paper and in this class."
Dr. Thomas rose from his desk, smiled, glanced at Steven's hips, and walked behind Steven's chair. He rested his hand
on his shoulder and said, "I'm glad you are interested in doing well. I'm sure we'll be able to work things out."
Steven swayed to the right to avoid his hand. He pulled a chair next to Steven's and sat down, stating, "Why don't
you tell me exactly what you want help with." Steven affirmed, ^1 want help with the organization of the paper." Dr.
Frank Thomas reached over and took Steven's hand, saying, "You know, I think you are a very special person, Steven.
I'm glad we'll have a chance to work more closely. Let's plan on meeting a couple of evenings this week."
Steven gathered his books and papers together and rapidly stood up. "I don't think I want your help under these
circumstances. I can get a good grade on the merits of my paper." Dr. Thomas stood up and put his arm around Steven's
shoulders. "Now, Steven, I'm here to help you." He squeezed his arm and smiled, "By the way, those jeans look really
nice on you." Steven pushed him away and ran for the door. Dr. Frank Thomas called to him, "I'll be here until 5:00.
Let me know if you're interested in working together." Steven quickly replied, as he left the office, "Sorry, but I
don't think I'm interested."
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THE FOLLOWING THREE PAGES OF THE OPINION INFORMATION SHEET IN TERMS OF YODR REACTION
TO THIS INCIDENT.
67


SITUATION REGARDING INFORMAL RELATIONSHIPS
The following interaction involves Dr. Sally Thomas, who is a professor, and Steven, a student in her introductory
history class. Dr. Thomas is black and Steven is black. Steven has scheduled a meeting with Dr. Thomas on Monday
afternoon in her office to get help on an upcoming assignment.
Steven approached Dr. Thomas' office for their scheduled appointment to talk about the upcoming paper she assigned.
In response to Steven's knock on her office door, Dr. Thomas told him to enter. As Steven came in, Dr. Thomas looked
up from her desk, smiled and told him to have a seat.
Steven sat across from Dr. Sally Thomas' desk and said, "I've been trying to figure out how to organize this paper.
I'm having some trouble and I want to get a good grade on this paper and in this class."
Dr. Thomas rose from her desk, smiled, glanced at Steven's hips, and walked behind his chair. She rested her hand on
Steven's shoulder and said, "I'm glad you are interested in doing well. I'm sure we'll be able to work things out."
Steven swayed to the right to avoid Dr. Thomas' hand. She pulled a chair next to Steven's and sat down, stating, "Why
don't you tell me exactly what you want help with." Steven affirmed, "I want help with the organization of the paper."
Dr. Sally Thomas reached over and took his hand, saying, "You know, I think you are a very special person, Steven.
I'm glad we'll have a chance to work more closely. Let's plan on.meeting a couple of evenings this week."
Steven gathered his books and papers together and rapidly stood up. "I don't think I want your help under these
circumstances. I can get a good grade on the merits of my paper." Dr. Thomas stood up and put her arm around Steven's
shoulders. "Now, Steven, I'm only here to help you." Dr. Thomas squeezed Steven's arm and smiled, "By the way, those
jeans looks really nice on you." Steven pushed her away and ran for the door. Dr. Sally Thomas called to him, "I'll
be here until 5:00. Let me know if you're interested in working together." Steven quickly replied, as he left the
office, "Sorry, but don't think I'm interested."
PLEASE ANSWER THE QUESTIONS ON THE FOLLOWING THREE PAGES OF THE OPINION INFORMATION SHEET IN TERMS OF YOUR REACTION
TO THIS INCIDENT.
68


APPENDIX B
CONSENT FORM, QUESTIONNAIRE, & DEBRIEFING SHEET
PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND CONSENT FORM
(To be read aloud by researcher while you read silently.)
NOTE TO PARTICIPANTS: YOU MUST BE 18 YEARS OR OLDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS STUDY. DO NOT
WRITE YOUR NAME ON THE OPINION INFORMATION SHEET.
Thank you for taking the time to participate in this Masters Thesis research project. We are conducting a variety of studies. Today
you will be asked to voluntarily participate in a study regarding informal relationships, which will take about 15-20 minutes or
more to complete. By signing below, you give your consent to participate in this study.
1. Please read the SITUATION REGARDING INFORMAL RELATIONSHIPS.
2. Next answer the eighteen questions on the OPINION INFORMATION SHEET.
3. At any time, you may ask questions, or you may withdraw consent and discontinue participation without prejudice or penalty of
any kind. If you choose to discontinue, please wait to turn in this form when the others are collected, to ensure your anonymity.
4. Once you have completed the OPINION INFORMATION SHEET, please turn it over, face down on your desk and we will
gather it from you.
6. Once the OPINION INFORMATION SHEETS are collected, they will be placed in an envelope. Careful measures will be
taken to ensure that all gathered data will be treated with professional standards of confidentiality. The OPINION
INFORMATION SHEETS will be combined with all other such sheets collected in other related studies. When all of the sheets are
collected, they will be fed into a computer where statistical information will be computed. Your anonymity will be protected in any
written material or discussions of the results of this project This consent form will be collected and filed separately.
7. Any questions concerning your rights as a subject may be directed to the Office of Sponsored Programs, CU-Denver, Campus
Box 123, PO Box 173364, Denver, CO 80217-3364, phone 556-2770, or Dr. Lyn Wickelgren, Chair, MSCD Human Subjects
Committee, Campus Box 54, POB 173362, Denver, 80217-3362, phone 556-3205.
8. The human subjects procedures of this project conform to Metropolitan State College of Denver and the University of Colorado
at Denver guidelines and have been approved by Dr. Kjell Tomblom, Professor of Sociology at UCD. The policies governing the
protection of human subjects have been approved by MSCD and UCD Human Subjects/Research Committees.
I have read and understand #1 #8 above and I consent to participate in this project:
Signature________________________________________Date________________________
69


OPINION INFORMATION SHEET
PLEASE ANSWER THE FOLLOWING SEVENTEEN QUESTIONS:
1. Please rate the behavior of the PROFESSOR in the incident you just read by placing an x under one of the boxes labeled 1-5,
for ALL of the 11 descriptors below. (For example, in descriptor 1:1= extremely considerate, 2 = somewhat considerate, 3 =
neither considerate nor inconsiderate, 4 = somewhat inconsiderate, 5 = extremely inconsiderate.
Use the same scale for descriptors 2-11.)
EXTREMELY 1 2 3 4 5 EXTREMELY
1) CONSIDERATE INCONSIDERATE
2) SENSITIVE INSENSITIVE
3) PROFESSIONAL UNPROFESSIONAL
4) ETHICAL UNETHICAL
5) APPROPRIATE INAPPROPRIATE
6) FAIR UNFAIR
7) KIND CRUEL
8) MORAL IMMORAL
9) TASTEFUL DISGUSTING
10) TOLERABLE INTOLERABLE
11) HARMLESS HARMFUL
2. What information in the incident affected your rating of the professors behavior?
3. Please rate the behavior of the STUDENT in the incident you just read, by placing an x under one of the boxes lableled 1-5,
for ALL of the 11 descriptors below. (For example, in descriptor 1: 1 = extremely considerate, 2 = somewhat considerate, 3 =
neither considerate nor inconsiderate, 4 = somewhat inconsiderate, 5 = extremely inconsiderate.
Use the same scale for descriptors 2-11.)
EXTREMELY 1 2 3 4 5 EXTREMELY
1) CONSIDERATE INCONSIDERATE
2) SENSITIVE INSENSITIVE
3) PROFESSIONAL UNPROFESSIONAL
4) ETHICAL UNETHICAL
5) APPROPRIATE INAPPROPRIATE
6) FAIR UNFAIR
7) KIND MEAN-SPIRITED
8) MORAL IMMORAL
9) TASTEFUL DISGUSTING
10) TOLERABLE INTOLERABLE
11) HARMLESS HARMFUL
4. What information in the incident affected your rating of the students behavior?
70


OPINION INFORMATION SHEET, Page 2
5. What would you have done if you were the student in this situation?
6. Do you think the student deserved to be treated as described in the incident? Explain briefly.
7. In the position of professor, do you think the professor had the right (was the professor entitled) to behave in the manner
described toward the student ? Explain briefly.
8. Do you think the professor should be punished? If you answered yes, briefly explain the nature and extent of the punishment that
should be given; if you answered no, explain why not
9. Please place an x under one of the boxes below which corresponds to the degree to which you would or would not
characterize the incident you just read as harassment.
1-notacaseof sexual harassment 2-mild case of sexual harassment 3-moderate case of sexual harassment 4-strong case of sexual harassment 5-severe case of sexual harassment

10. Please place an x under one of the boxes below which corresponds to the degree to which you felt the student was harmed or
not harmed by the professors behavior.
1-no harm 2-mild harm 3-moderate harm 4-strong harm 5-severe harm

11. In your rating in #10 above, if you marked the boxes under 3-moderate harm or 4-strong harm or 5-severe harm, please
briefly explain the nature of the harm you think the student suffered.
71


OPINION INFORMATION SHEET, Page 3
12. Have you ever been sexually harassed? If yes, briefly describe what happened, where it occurred (e.g., workplace, classroom,
etc.); the relationship of the harasser to you (e.g., employer, employee, coworicer, professor, friend, fellow student, etc.); the sex
and ethnicity of the harasser, how you felt and how you responded.
13. Have you WITNESSED a situation of sexual harassment? If yes, briefly describe where it occurred (e.g., workplace,
classroom, etc.); the relationship of the harasser and victim to you (e.g., employer, employee, professor, coworker, friend, fellow
student, etc.); the sex and ethnicity of both the victim and the harasser, how you felt and how you responded.
PLEASE PLACE AN X IN THE APPROPRIATE BOXES BELOW:
14. What is your SEX? Male______Female______
15. What is your CLASS RANK? Freshman______ Sophomore_____Junior_______ Senior
16. What is your ETHNICITY? African-American Chicano/Hispanic/Latino-American_________
American Indian_____Asian-American______
Caucasian/White (Non-Hispanic)____Other_______
17. What is your AGE? ____________
18. What is your ATTITUDE about homosexual relationships?
Positive____Negative_______Neutral______
72


DEBRIEFING SHEET
(To be read to the participants after the surveys have been collected)
Thank you for participating in this study. This study is part of a Masters Thesis project. The purpose of this research is to
determine whether observers evaluate a fictitious situation of sexual harassment differently depending on the sex and ethnicity of the
barasser and the victim.
Not everyone read the same situation. In some cases the victim was female, but male in others; in some cases the victim was white,
and in some, black. Likewise, the harasser could either be male, female, black or white.
If you are interested in the results of this study, if you would like a copy of it, or if you have any questions or comments regarding it,
please feel free to call Elyse Yamauchi at her office here on campus at 556-5029.
IF, AFTER RESPONDING TO QUESTIONS 12 OR 13 of the OPINION INFORMATION SHEET, you feel that you would like
to talk to someone, the following MSCD individuals/offices are available to help you: if you feel you need emotional support, you
may call the Counseling Center at 556-3132; if you would like to discuss informal options for resolution of a sexual harassment
situation, you may call Tara Tull, Coodinator of Womens Services at 556-8441; if you would like to discuss formal MSCD
policies, governing sexual harassment grievances, you may call Percy Morehouse, Director of EEO, at 556-2939.
It was a pleasure to work with you.
73


BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adams, J., Kottke, J., & Padgett, J. (1983).
Sexual harassment of university students. Journal of
College Student Personnel. 24, 484-490.
Agnew, R. (1985). Neutralizing the impact of
crime. Criminal Justice and Behavior. 12, 221-239.
Allen, M., Armstrong, C., Clarin, A., & Velasquez,
J. (1988). Severity and gender effects on ratings of
sexual harassment. ERIC Document Reproduction NO. ED 300
737.
Benson, D. & Thompson, G. (1982). Sexual
harassment on a university campus: The confluence of
authority relations, sexual interest and gender
stratification. Social Problems. 29, 236-251.
Bernard, J. (1979). Interaction between the race
of the defendant and that of the jurors in determining
verdicts. Law and Psychology Review. 103-111.
Coles, F. (1986). Forced to quit: Sexual
harassment complaints and agency response. Sex Roles.
14, 63-81.
Collins, E. & Bladgett, T. (1981). Sexual
harassment: Some see it...some won't. Harvard Business
Review, 59> 76-95.
Crull, P. (1982). Stress effects of sexual
harassment on the job: implications for counseling.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry. 52, 539-543.
Denzin, N. (1970). The research act. Chicago:
Aldine Publishing Company.
74


Dzeich, B. & Weiner, L. (1984). The lecherous
professor: Sexual harassment on campus. Boston: Beacon
Press.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1980).
Discrimination because of sex under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended; adoption of interim
interpretive guidelines. Federal Register. 45, 25024-
25025.
Fain T., & Anderton, D. (1987). Sexual harassment:
Organizational Context and Diffuse Status. Sex Roles.
291-311.
Farley, L. (1978). Sexual shakedown: Sexual
harassment of women on the iob. New York: McGraw-Hill.
Field H. (1979). Rape trials and jurors' decisions:
A psycholegal analysis of the efefcts of victim,
defendant, and case characteristics. Law and Human
Behavior, 3, 261-284.
Foley, L. & Chamblin, M. (1982). The effect of race
and personality on mock jurors' decisions. Journal of
Psychology. 112, 47-51.
Gray, D. & Ashmore R. (1976). Biasing influence on
defendants' characteristics on simulated sentencing.
Psychological Reports. 38, 727-738.
Gutek, B. & Morasch B. (1982). Sex-ratios, sex-
role spillover, and sexual harassment of women at work.
Journal of Social Issues. 38, 55-74.
Gutek, B. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San
Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Jensen, W. & Gutek, B. (1982). Attributions and
assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment.
Journal of Sociological Issues. 38, 121-136.
Johnson, W. & Packer, A (1987). Workforce 2000:
Work and workers for the 21st century. Indianapolis:
Hudson Institute.
75


Jones, T. & Remland, M. (1992). Sources of
variability in perceptions of and responses to sexual
harassment. Sex Roles. 27, 121-142.
Junger, M. (1987). Women's experiences of sexual
harassment: Some implications for their fear of crime.
British Journal of Criminologyf 27, 358-383.
Klein, K. & Creech, B. (1982). Race and
imprisonment decisions in California. Science, 247, 812-
816.
Konrad, A. & Gutek, B. (1986). Impact of work
experiences on attitudes toward sexual harassment.
Administrative Science Quarterly. 31, 422-438.
Littler-Bishop, S., Seidler-Feller, D. & Opalich, R.
(1982). Sexual harassment in the workplace as a function
of initiator's status: the case of airline personnel.
Journal of Social Issues. 38, 137-148.
Livingston, J. (1982). Response to sexual
harassment on the job. Legal organizations and
individual actions. Journal of Social Issues. 38, 5-22.
Malovich, N. & Stake, J. (1990). Sexual harassment
on campus: Institutional differences in attitudes and
beliefs. Psychology of Women Quarterly. 14, 63-81.
Mazer, D. & Percival, E. (1989). Student's
experiences of sexual harassment at a small university.
Sex Roles. 20, 1-22. ^
McCall, G. & Simmons, J. (1978). Identities and
interactions. New York: Free Press McMillan.
McGlynn, R., Megas, J. & Benson, D. (1976). Sex and
race as factors affecting the attribution of insanity in
a murder trial. Journal of Psychology. 93, 93-99.
McKinney, K., Olson, C., & Satterfield, A. (1988).
Graduate students' perceptions of and reactions to sexual
harassment. Journal of Interpersonal Violence. 3, 319-
325.
76


Norris, W. (1991). Liberal attitudes and
homophobic acts: The pardoxes of homosexual experience
in a liberal institution. Journal of Homosexuality. 22,
81-120.
Popovich, P., Licata, B., Nokovich, D., Markell, T.
& Zoloty, S. (1986). Assessing the incidence and
perceptions of sexual harassing behaviors among American
undergraduates. Journal of Psychology. 120, 387-396.
Powell, G. (1986). Effects of sex role identity
and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles,
14, 9-19.
Pryor, J. (1985). The lay person's understanding
of sexual harassment. Sex Roles. 13, 273-278.
Pryor, J. & Day, J. (1988). Interpretations of
sexual harassment: an attributional analysis. Sex
Roles, 18, 405-417.
Pfeifer, J. & Ogloff, J. (1991). Ambiguity and
guilt determinations: A modern racism perspective.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 21, 1713-1725.
Reilly, T., Carpenter, S., Dull, V., & Bartlett, K.
(1982). The factorial survey: an approach to defining
sexual harassment on campus. Journal of Social Issues,
38, 99-109.
Reilly, T., Lott, B., Galloway, S. (1986). Sexual
harassment of university students. Sex Roles, 15, 333-
358.
Roloff, M. (1981). Interpersonal communication: A
social exchange approach. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
Rome, D., Son, I. & Davis, M. (1995). Police use
of excessive force: Does race of the suspect influence
citizens' perceptions? Social Justice Research. 8, 1,
41-56.
Rossi, P. & Nock, S. (1982). Measuring social
judgments: The factorial design approach. Beverly
Hills: Sage.
77


Rossi, P. & Weber-Burdin, E. (1983). Sexual
harassment on campus. Social Science Research, 12, 131-
158.
Rossi, P. (1979). Vignette analysis: Uncovering
the normative structure of complex judgments. In Merton,
R., Coleman, J., and Rossi, P. (eds.), Qualitative and
quantitative social research: Papers in honor of Paul F.
Lazarsfeld. New York: Free Press.
Ryan, W. (1976). Blaming the victim. New York:
Vintage Books.
Sandler, B. (1981). Sexual harassment: A hidden
problem. Educational Record. 62, 52-57.
Schneider, B. (1982). Consciousness about sexual
harassment among heterosexual and lesbian women workers.
Journal of Social Issues. 38, 75-98.
Schneider, L., Soh-Chiew Ee, J., Aronson, H.
(1994). Effects of victim gender and physical vs.
psychological trauma/injury on observers' perceptions of
sexual assault and its aftereffects. Sex Roles, 30, 793-
808.
Sigal, J., Gibbs, M., Belford, S., Ronan, S., &
Gervasio, A. (1987). Sexual harassment on three college
campuses. ERIC Document Reproduction No. ED 282 118.
Summers, R. (1991). Determinants of judgments of
and responses to a complaint of sexual harassment. Sex
Roles, 25, 379-392.
Tangri, S., Burt, M., & Johnson, L. (1982). Sexual
harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal
of Social Issues, 38, 4, 33-54.
Thomann, D. & Wiener, R. (1987). Physical and
psychological causality as determinants of culpability in
sexual harassment cases. Sex Roles. 17, 563-591.
Thomas, Jr., R. (1992). Bevond race and gender.
New York: AMACOM.
78


Ugwuegbu, D. (1979). Racial and evidential factors
in juror attribution of legal responsibility. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology. 15, 133-146.
Valentine-French, S. & Radtke, H. (1989).
Attributions of responsibility for an incident of sexual ;
harassment in a university setting. Sex Roles r 21, 545-
555.
Weber-Burdin, E. & Rossi, P. (1982). Defining
sexual harassment on campus: A replication and
extension. Journal of Social Issues. 38, 111-120.
Williams, K., & Cyr, R. (1992). Escalating
Commitment to a relationship: The sexual harassment
trap. Sex Roles. 27, 47-72.
Workman, J. & Johnson, K. (1991). The role of
cosmetics in attributions about sexual harassment. Sex
Roles. 24, 759-769.
79