Perceptions of the Sexual Harassment of Men

Male Sexual Harassment 1

running head: perception of sexual harassment

Perceptions of the Sexual Harassment of Men

Margaret S. Stockdale, Cynthia Gandolfo Berry, Robert W. Schneider, and Feng Cao Southern Illinois University at Carbondale

Abstract

Factors affecting perceptions of sexual harassment (SH) against men were examined in a scenario- based study of 330 female and 257 male students and adults. We theorized that same-sex rejection-based harassment occurs to police masculine expressions. Therefore, individuals aligning with this perspective would be less likely than others to view such incidents as SH. The authors manipulated gender of initiator and type of harassment (approach vs. reject). Men and respondents with strong hypermasculinity attitudes were less likely than others to perceive the cases as SH but only in rejection-based scenarios. Same-sex harassment was perceived to be less harassing than other-sex harassment in the rejection-based scenarios, but the opposite was true for approach-based harassment. Limitations and suggestions for future research are discussed.

1 errorPerception of sexual harassment

Sexual harassment (SH) inquiry over the past two decades has rightfully focused on the experiences of women. Recently, however, some attention has been paid to men’s harassment experiences. This was stimulated by the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. (1998) that Title VII covers same-sex SH and by a growing interest in the completeness of SH theory (Franke, 1997).

1 errorThe Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (1980) definition of SH has been adopted as the legal definition (see Meritor Savings Bank FSB v. Vinson, 1986). It outlines two illegal forms of SH: (a) quid pro quo, or the conditioning of tangible employment benefits on sexual cooperation, and (b) hostile work environment, or the subjugation of employees to severe and pervasive unwanted sexual behavior because of their sex that has the effect of substantially interfering with the work environment. In contrast, behavioral definitions of SH that focus on the constellation of events that could be construed as harassing cluster into three or four categories (e.g., Fitzgerald, Swan, and Magley, 1997): (a) gender harassment, which is behavior not aimed at sexual cooperation but conveys insulting, hostile, and degrading attitudes about women (in some studies [e.g., Stockdale, Visio, & Batra, 1999], this has broken into two factors: sexist hostility, or being treated differently because of your sex, and sexual hostility, or being subjected to humiliating sexual stimuli); (b) unwanted sexual attention (unwanted verbal and nonverbal sexual behavior intended to attract sexual attention); and (c) sexual coercion (the extortion of sexual cooperation in return for job-related considerations).

1 errorResearch focusing specifically on male SH began to appear in the late 1990s. Berdahl, Magley, and Waldo, 1996, noted that men regard negotiations of gender in the workplace that challenge male dominance as sexually harassing. Examples of this behavior include ridiculing a man for doing things women normally do (such as taking time off to help with a new baby).

1 errorOne clear difference between male and femaletargeted SH is that men are much more likely to experience same-sex SH (SSSH) than are women (DuBois, Knapp, Faley, & Kustis, 1998; Stockdale et al., 1999). For example, surveys of federal employees have shown that approximately 21% of harassed men experienced SSSH compared with about 1%–3% of harassed women (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981, 1995). After examining significant court cases of male SH and systematically examining the nature of men’s SH experiences from the U.S. Department of Defense’s (DoD) large-scale SH survey, Stockdale, Visio, and Batra (1999; see also Stockdale, in press) noted that men who experienced SSSH were more likely than men experiencing other-sex SH (OSSH) to be the targets of sexual hostility, or behaviors designed to tease and humiliate the target. OSSH targets tended to experience either sexist comments by women or unwanted sexual attention. Furthermore, compared with OSSH targets, SSSH targets tended to be young and in subordinate positions (Stockdale et al., 1999).

We know little about how people view SH against men. We distinguish approach- from rejection-based harassment as well as SSSH versus OSSH to better understand the potential vagaries in the perception of SH of men.

In addition to this intricate examination of SSSH and OSSH vis-a`-vis approach- and rejection-based harassment, this study aimed to explore the direct relationship between perceiver gender and perceptions of male SH.

Rater Gender

1errorThree meta-analyses have supported the hypothesis that women are more likely to interpret unwanted social–sexual behavior as harassing than are men, especially when the behavior or scenario is ambiguous (Blumenthal, 1998; O’Connor, 1998; Rotundo, Nguyen, & Sackett, 2001). Self-referencing, which is using oneself as a referent in deciding whether SH occurs (O’Connor et al., 2004; Wiener & Hurt, 2000), and harm avoidance (Jensen & Gutek, 1982, Shaver, 1970) have been forwarded as explanations for this gender difference (see also Kenig & Ryan, 1986, Summers & Myklebust, 1992). Harm avoidance theory (Shaver, 1970), posits that perceivers who view themselves as similar to the victim (e.g., SH target) are motivated to avoid similar harm, thus they are less likely to blame the victims for the accident or harassment. Perceivers who view themselves as potentially being blamed for a similar incident as the perpetrator are motivated to avoid blame. Thus, they are more forgiving toward the perpetrator and more likely to blame the victim. The self-referencing hypothesis would predict that women will be more sensitive than men to male SH because they can put themselves in the victim role more easily. The harm avoidance hypothesis predicts that men will be more sensitive than women to male SH because of gender similarity with the target.

1 errorAlthough gender-based similarity biases have been noted in studies on job-applicant favorability ratings (Gallois, Callen, & Palmer, 1992; cf. Graves & Powell, 1995; Smith & Callum, 1996), perceived similarity appears to be a more potent predictor of favorability bias than simple demographic similarity (Pulakos & Wexley, 1983; Liden, Wayne, & Stilwell, 1993). Men may negatively view or distance themselves from other men who claim to have been sexually harassed, and therefore male raters may not perceive themselves to be similar to a man complaining of SH. Thus, we hypothesize that women will be more sensitive than men to SH judgments of men. Furthermore, consistent with Wiener and Hurt’s (2000) speculation that women, more than men, would selfreference their judgments of male SH, we hypothesize that self-referencing judgments will mediate the relationship between rater gender and SH judgments.

Method

Participants and Procedure

Two samples were collected for this study. The first consisted of 343 undergraduates (45% male) enrolled in a general psychology course at a Midwestern university who participated in the study for course credit. Their average age was 21.20 years (SD 3.89); 63% were White, 22% were Black–African American, 6% were Hispanic, 3% were Indian– Eskimo, 5% were Asian, and 1% were other. Participants completed the study materials in groups of 2–15, although they worked independently. They were given one of eight scenarios1 to read and the accompanying rating forms to complete.

For the manipulation check study, 40 male and 40 female undergraduate students enrolled in a general psychology course read one of the eight scenarios and completed a survey designed to assess the perceived intentions of the alleged harasser. Their task was to determine whether the scenarios were perceived as composing rejection- or approach-based intentions.

Materials

Measures.

2 errorsThe survey contained items measuring personal and legal definitions of harassment, selfreferencing items, other follow-up questions, measures of sexism, and demographic information. With few exceptions, the survey questions were identical to the survey used in Gutek et al. (1999). Specifically, the respondent’s personal definition of harassment was measured with the following item: “In your opinion was Bill Smith sexually harassed?” Because both cases described a hostile work environment, as opposed to quid pro quo harassment, only the legal definition of the former was asked. The legal definition of hostile work environment was written on the survey,2and respondents answered two questions concerning the extent to which they believed a hostile work environment existed at the company (“Would a reasonable person have perceived New Era Shoes, Inc. to be a hostile work environment?” and “Do you think that a jury would decide that a hostile work environment existed at New Era Shoes, Inc.?”). These items were combined to form a hostile work environment (HWE) scale (A = .70). Two additional items were modeled after Wiener and Hurts work on self-referencing: “If the things that happened to Bill Smith had happened to you, would you consider it to be sexual harassment–inappropriate?” These items were combined to form a selfreferencing scale (A = .73). An additional question asked if the respondent were a coworker of Bill Smith, would he or she be willing to testify to an investigation team on Bill’s behalf (in support of Bill’s claim of SH). All the items described above were answered on 6-point scales ranging from 1 (no, not at all) to 6 (yes, definitely).

Participant sexism was measured with the Hypermasculinity Inventory (HI; Mosher & Sirkin, 1984). This scale measures the macho personality construct, which consists of a constellation of calloused sex attitudes toward women, a conception of violence as manly, and a view of danger as exciting. The 30-item forced-choice scale is unidimensional, with good reliability (A =.91). Thompson and Pleck (1995) noted that the HI has strong construct validity but that it may be limited for use with a heterosexual population only. Thompson and Pleck also noted that the HI is a distal indicator of the social forces on men’s behavior and therefore is relevant only to the extremes in male behavior. However, this is the type of construct of interest in this study. We propose that extreme masculine gender-role identification, or hypermasculinity, accounts for apathy in the perception of male SH.

For the manipulation check study, we used an 18- item scale with Likert-type items assessing the perceived intent of the harassment initiator’s behavior. Anchors ranged from 0 (not at all) to 4 (very large extent). Principal-components analysis with varimax rotation revealed a four-component solution, with simple structure accounting for 74% of the variance. Subscales were created by averaging items that loaded on their respective components: Sexual Attraction (4 items; e.g., “wanted to establish a sexual relationship with you;” α = .97), Rejection (5 items; e.g., “was trying to reject you,” “wanted to humiliate you;” α = .91), Joking (5 items; e.g., “was having fun without meaning to hurt anyone;”α =.80), and Friendship (4 items; e.g., “considered you to ‘fit into’ their group,” “considered you to be a close friend;” α =.74).

Results

Manipulation Check

1 errorA 2 (type of harassment: approach vs. rejection) x 2 (gender of harasser) x 2 (gender of participant) multivariate analysis of variance (MANOVA) was conducted on the manipulation check scales: Sexual Attraction, Rejection, Joking, and Friendship. The multivariate F was significant for type of harassment (Wilks’s Λ = .21), F(4, 66) = 61.45, p < .001, and gender of harasser (Wilks’s Λ = .73), F(4, 66) = 6.03, p< .001. For type of harassment, univariate follow-up tests found significant effects for three of the scales: Sexual Attraction, F(1, 69) = 225.74, p < .001, η2 = .77; Rejection, F(1, 69) = 44.79, p < .001, η2 = .40; and Friendship, F(1, 69) = 4.46,p < .05, η2 = .06. The means indicated that the approach scenario was rated higher than the rejection scenario on Sexual Attraction motive (approach: M = 3.17, SD = 0.90; rejection: M = 0.47, SD= 0.71) and the Friendship motive (approach: M = 0.72, SD = 0.81; rejection: M = 0.40, SD= 0.63), whereas the opposite was true for the Rejection motive (approach: M = 1.39, SD= 1.10; rejection: M = 2.83, SD= 0.85). Thus, we concluded that the approach and rejection scenarios accurately reflected their intended motives.

Discussion

Our research helped to generalize findings from past research on female SH to understanding male SH. Consistent with this body of research, sexist attitudes (hypermasculinity) and respondent gender exerted main effects on SH perceptions. Specifically, men and individuals who endorsed hypermasculinity beliefs were less likely to perceive the scenarios as SH than did women or nonsexist individuals. These effects, albeit small, were consistent across both student and nonstudent adult samples. However, these effects were qualified by important interactions with the type of harassment. Rejection-based SH, the form that Berdahl et al. (1996) identified as involving “negotiations of gender,” was perceived as less harassing when committed by male perpetrators, by male respondents, and by individual’s possessing strong hypermasculinity attitudes. These factors did not affect the perception of approach-based harassment, a form typically committed by women and not considered to entail a gender-policing function. The findings from this study, therefore, lend support to the theory that some forms of male SH may be motivated by sexist motivations to control men’s masculine expressions in the workplace and that individuals who align with this belief system are less likely than others to view such incidents as SH.

Although all of the hypotheses were generally supported, the unexpected crossover interaction between gender of perpetrator and type of harassment on hostile work environment ratings poses an interesting trajectory for future research. As expected, SSSH was considered less harassing than OSSH in the rejection condition, but in the approach condition, SSSH was considered to be significantly more harassing than OSSH. Approach-based SSSH is quite possibly viewed as homosexually motivated harassment, and people may regard this as particularly threatening for men (it’s also an empirical question whether people view homosexually motivated harassment against women to be threatening). In the past, SH against men has been dismissed as unimportant (cf. Vaux, 1993, for a discussion), probably because only experiences or perceptions of approachbased OSSH have been examined, which men typically find to be amusing or at least not serious (see Gutek, 1985). Our investigation of SSSH suggests that some forms of male SH may indeed be considered quite threatening. However, it should be noted that survey research finds approach-based SSSH to be much more rare than rejection-based SSSH. Thus, homosexually motivated harassment may be a potential, but nonprevalent, threat to men.

Consistent with past research on female harassment, women were more likely than men to judge cases of male SH as harassing. Furthermore, consistent with Wiener and Hurt’s (2000) prediction, selfreferencing accounted for this gender difference. This finding lends credence to the view that situational or contextual similarity is more potent than demographic similarity in being able to put oneself in the target’s shoes, so to speak.

1 errorFurther research on self-referencing is needed to more precisely determine how it operates. One speculation is that individuals who have had prior experience with SH are more sensitive to the perception of SH and thus are more likely to use that experience as a reference for judging others’ claims of SH. Stockdale, O’Connor, Gutek, and Geer (2002) found no support for any consistent relationship between prior sexual victimization experiences (SH or other) on SH perceptions (see also D. Fitzgerald, Q. Buchanan, C. Collinsworth, L..G. Magley, & L.A. Ramos, 1999). Although some individuals may use their prior sexual victimization– SH as a reference for judging current harassment claims, it is possible that a current claim may seem too trivial in comparison to the perceiver’s prior experience or not relevant at all. Further development and understanding of the self-referencing concept is needed.

In summary, sexism and SH have long been interconnected in our understanding female SH (see Franke, 1997). This study helps show that sexism can be an integral part of male SH as well. People who align with a sexist patriarchal worldview are particularly insensitive to same-sex rejection-based harassment against men—a form of harassment that is particularly prevalent for men.

References

Author: Gutek, B. A.

Year: 1985

Book Title: Sex and the workplace: Impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men, and organizations.

Publisher: San Francisco, Jossey-Bass.

Authors: Gutek, B. A., O’Connor, M. A., Melancon, R., Stockdale, M. S., Geer, T. M., and Done, R. S.

Year: 1999

Article title: The utility of the reasonable woman legal standards in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multimethod, multistudy examination.

Journal title: Public Policy, Psychology, and Law,

Volume: 5,

Pages: 596–629.

Author: O’Connor, M. A.

Year: 1998

Title: Gender and the definition of sexual harassment: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature.

Extra information:This is anunpublished doctoral dissertation presented as part of the requirements of a doctoral degree from the Department of Psychology, University of Arizona.

Court Case: Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 118 S. Ct. 998 (1998).

Authors: Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D., and Sackett, P. R.

Date: 2001

Title: A metaanalytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment.

Journal title: Journal of Applied Psychology

Volume: 86

Pages: 914–922.

Authors: Stockdale, M. S.

Date: (in press)

Chapter Title: The sexual harassment of men: Articulating the approach–rejection distinction in sexual harassment motives.

Book information that chapter is in:

Authors: J. E. Gruber and P. Morgan (Eds.)

Book title: In the company of men: Rediscovering the links between sexual harassment and male domination.

Publisher: Northeastern University Press, Boston.

Margaret S. Stockdale, Cynthia Gandolfo Berry, Robert W. Schneider, and Feng Cao, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale. We thank Barbara A. Gutek for her helpful suggestions for this research, her insightful comments, and critical review of this article. We also thank Eric Sites, Timothy Hargett, and Anne Azevedo for their efforts on earlier versions of this research and for their assistance with data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Margaret S. Stockdale, Department of Psychology, Southern Illinois University, Carbondale, IL 62901- 6502. E-mail: sychology of Men & Masculinity Copyright 2004 by the Educational Publishing Foundation 2004, Vol. 5, No. 2, 158–167 1524-9220/04/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/1524-9220.5.2.158 158

Footnote

1We also manipulated how the target responded to the harassment (remained silent and tolerated the behavior or actively complained to a supervisor about the behavior), but this factor was not the focus of the current study. All effects discussed in this study are combined over this factor.