UNDERSTANDING CONTRAPOWER IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT. A thesis presented to. the faculty of. the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University

Transcription

1 UNDERSTANDING CONTRAPOWER IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT A thesis presented to the faculty of the College of Arts and Sciences of Ohio University In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science Melissa M. Smart November 2007

2 2 This thesis titled UNDERSTANDING CONTRAPOWER IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT by MELISSA M. SMART has been approved for the Department of Psychology and the College of Arts and Sciences by Paula M. Popovich Associate Professor of Psychology Benjamin M. Ogles Dean, College of Arts and Sciences

3 Abstract SMART, MELISSA M., M.S., November 2007, Industrial/Organizational Psychology 3 UNDERSTANDING CONTRAPOWER IN SEXUAL HARASSMENT (130 pp.) Director of Thesis: Paula M. Popovich Sexual harassment (SH) in organizations is a complex problem that has been of interest for nearly 30 years. A number of theories have been proposed to explain SH, and while none of them have had extensive support, power is a consistent element. Both traditional and non-traditional forms of SH exist, including contrapower harassment in which the harasser appears to hold less formal power than the victim. The purpose of this study was to investigate perceptions of contrapower SH in order to gain a more thorough understanding of SH. Participants read one of 8 vignettes, in which several characteristics had been varied. Participants answered questions regarding whether harassment had occurred, and if so, who in the interaction was at fault. Results revealed evidence for both traditional and contrapower SH. However, no significant findings for participant gender or exposure to training/education were found. Approved: Paula M. Popovich Associate Professor of Psychology

4 4 Table of Contents Page Abstract... 3 List of Tables... 6 List of Figures... 7 Understanding Contrapower in Sexual Harassment... 8 Sexual Harassment Background... 9 Legal Definitions of Sexual Harassment Perceptions of Sexual Harassment Legal Aspects of Perceptions of Sexual Harassment Individual Differences in Perceptions of Sexual Harassment Summary Models of Sexual Harassment Biological/Evolutionary Models Sociological Models Organizational Models Individual Models Feminist Models Summary The Influence of Power in Sexual Harassment Summary Traditional and Non-traditional Sexual Harassment Traditional Sexual Harassment Contrapower Sexual Harassment Summary Organizational vs. Academic Settings Summary The Present Study Hypotheses Method Participants Design Materials Procedure Results Additional Analyses Summary Discussion General Findings Position Power Gender Harasser Gender Participant Gender... 93

5 5 Additional Findings Exposure to Sexual Harassment Training No Harassment Conditions Limitations and Future Research Implications Conclusions References Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D Appendix E Appendix F Appendix G Appendix H Appendix I Appendix J Appendix K

6 List of Tables 6 Page Table 1 Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Means for Type of Vignette...54 Table 2 Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Means for Type of Vignette, Control Vignettes Only...55 Table 3 Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Means for Type of Harasser...56 Table 4 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Professor vs. Student Harassers...59 Table 5 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Harassment Vignettes Only...62 Table 6 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Male vs. Female Harassers...65 Table 7 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Harasser Gender x Position Power Interaction...69 Table 8 Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Means for Participant Training Experience...70 Table 9 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Participant Gender...71 Table 10 Categorizations of Open-Ended Responses...74 Table 11 Multivariate Analysis of Variance and Means for Type of Initiator, No Harassment Only...76 Table 12 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Professor vs. Student Initiators, No Harassment Only...77 Table 13 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Male vs. Female Initiators, No Harassment Only...79 Table 14 Multivariate Analysis of Variance for Initiator Gender x Power Interaction, No Harassment Only...82

7 List of Figures Page 7 Figure 1 Vignette Conditions Included in the Current Study...51

8 8 Understanding Contrapower in Sexual Harassment Sexual harassment is a prevalent problem in organizations, with 44% of women and 19% of men reporting such harassment (U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1995). In order to deal with this problem, it is important to first understand the issue, including the major characteristics and causes of sexual harassment. Sexual harassment can take many forms, both traditional and non-traditional, but power is a recurring theme in most descriptions of sexual harassment, creating a focal point for the current research. Wilson and Thompson (2001) state that when examining power and sexual harassment, traditionally men are the harassers of women, and these men are often in positions of formal power over their victims. Quite often, sexual harassment is prevalent where there are large formal power differentials (Cleveland & Kerst, 1993). Formal power usually refers to situations in which an individual occupies (by appointment or election) a position that allows him/her to have control over others. For example, a CEO has formal power over his or her secretary. Formal power refers to power within an organizational context. Cleveland and Kerst, in their discussion of societal, organizational, and individual powers, also concluded that men typically hold more power than do women, which contributes to the higher rates of female victimization. In addition to the more traditional forms of sexual harassment (e.g. a man harassing a woman or someone with power harassing someone with less power), there are also non-traditional forms of sexual harassment, including the harassment of men, samesex harassment, and contrapower harassment. Contrapower sexual harassment arises in situations where the harasser has less formal power than the victim (Benson, 1984), and

9 is an excellent example of how other sources of power may contribute to an incident of 9 sexual harassment. Power in sexual harassment can stem from several different sources including biological or evolutionary (Tangri & Hayes, 1997), sociological/societal (Wilson & Thompson, 2001), organizational, and individual sources (Ragins & Sundstrom, 1989; Cleveland & Kerst, 1993). Power is an important aspect of sexual harassment behavior and incidents. Perhaps a more comprehensive understanding of power, including nontraditional power relationships (e.g., contrapower), can be applied to sexual harassment to help us to better understand the various forms sexual harassment can take. Examining the particular characteristics (e.g., setting, power differences, gender of victim/harasser) of organizations that give rise to various forms of sexual harassment may also allow us to predict when there is a likelihood that these behaviors may become a problem. Specifically, the unique form of sexual harassment, contrapower sexual harassment, was investigated in the current study. Individuals can interpret the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) guidelines on sexual harassment in different ways. Furthermore, individuals have differing familiarity with the various forms of sexual harassment (i.e., traditional versus non-traditional). Because of these two factors, contrapower harassment is particularly interesting because it may or may not be considered harassment, either legally or perceptually. Sexual Harassment Background Sexual harassment has only come into the public eye and into research within the last 30 years or so. The first survey by the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board conducted in 1980 showed that sexual harassment in the workplace was perceived to be a

10 problem (USMSPB, 1995). According to the 1995 U.S. Merit Systems Protection 10 Board, over 40% of women and nearly 20% of men reported experiencing some form of sexually harassing behaviors. The report states that because these numbers have not significantly changed since an earlier administration of the survey (1987), sexual harassment is still an issue that needs to be addressed. While sexual harassment has undoubtedly existed prior to the 1980s, it was in this decade that research investigating this phenomenon began to become more common (e.g., Reilly, Carpenter, Dull, & Bartlett, 1982; Popovich, Licata, Nokovich, Martelli, & Zoloty, 1986; Abbey, 1987; Pryor, 1987). With the establishment of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission guidelines on sexual harassment, organizations were able to adopt a common legallybased definition of sexual harassment to use when dealing with internal complaints. The EEOC guidelines took sexual harassment from an unmentioned part of every day life for some employees to a punishable offense. Legal definitions of sexual harassment There are two general forms of sexual harassment: quid pro quo and hostile environment (EEOC, 1980). Quid pro quo sexual harassment involves an economic impact on the victim. Specifically, unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individual s work performance or creating an

11 intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment (pp ). The EEOC 11 guidelines on sexual harassment can be found in Appendix A. The third descriptor in the EEOC guidelines on sexual harassment refers to hostile environment sexual harassment in which there is no direct economic impact on the victim. Examples of quid pro quo sexual harassment include behaviors such as a woman being threatened with termination unless she sleeps with her boss, or making a sexual act a term of being hired. Examples of hostile environment sexual harassment include sexual jokes, offensive pictures, and repeated requests for sexual favors which do not affect employment status. Quid pro quo sexual harassment is often perceived to be more serious than hostile environment sexual harassment, but both types of behavior are actionable under the law. Even with these legal guidelines, sexual harassment is not always clear because of its perceptual nature. An important, yet controversial, component of sexual harassment is intention: That is, did the harasser intend to harass the victim, or was there simply a misunderstanding. It is important to note that legally, intent on the part of the harasser does not matter, whereas perceptually, intent does matter. Specifically, on the one hand, when examining the totality of the circumstances regarding an allegation of sexual harassment, whether or not the harasser intended to harass the victim does not matter. On the other hand, when an individual perceives that he or she has been harassed, it is likely that the victim considers the perceived intent of the harasser (MacKinnon, 1979; USMSPB, 1995). Another legal aspect of sexual harassment involves who within an organization may be considered a victim or a harasser. Harassers can be men and women, as can their

12 victims. Also, the victim need not be the opposite sex of the harasser (i.e., same-sex 12 harassment also qualifies as sexual harassment). Furthermore, a victim of sexual harassment does not necessarily have to have been involved in the incident itself (third party harassment). Third party harassment means that any individual who is adversely impacted by the sexually harassing behaviors, even if he or she is not the intended target, can be considered a victim. Finally, the harasser can have a variety of relationships to the victim: The harasser may be the victim s supervisor, co-worker, subordinate, an agent of the employer (e.g. a supplier), or even an individual who is not employed by the organization. When investigating allegations of sexual harassment, all of the circumstances surrounding the incident are considered on a case-by-case basis (EEOC, 2001). According to the U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board (1995) report, few victims of sexual harassment take formal action against their harassers. The report states that although 78% of the survey respondents were aware of the procedure for taking formal action against a harasser (the same was also true of 76% of harassment victims), only 6% of the survey respondents reported having taken formal action. The figures reported by the EEOC show that only 3% of the complaints filed with the commission were sexual harassment-related discrimination complaints, further demonstrating the limited number of cases that receive formal action. The types of formal action taken by the respondents to the survey of federal employees fall into several categories: 42% requested an investigation by the organization, 30% filed a discrimination complaint or suit, 25% filed a grievance or adverse action appeal, 14% requested an investigation by an organization outside of the employer, and 17% took some other form of action. Some individuals took

13 more than one formal action. Of those who chose not to take any formal action in 13 response to harassment, the USMSPB report states that it was a very low percentage who chose not to take action because either they felt the supervisors would not be supportive (6%) or because they did not know how (5%). The report notes that these figures are important because they indicate that employees largely feel that management will be supportive and are aware of the channels for reporting harassment. When allegations of sexual harassment are brought into the legal arena, the reasonable person standard is generally employed for determining whether harassment has occurred. This standard means that the deciding parties (e.g., a judge or a jury) should consider what a reasonable person would do in a situation with similar circumstances (Gutek, O Connor, Melancon, Stockdale, Geer, & Done, 1999). Gutek, et al. describe the origins and evolution of the reasonable person standard.the authors note that the reasonable person standard began with the reasonable man standard which was employed in the 1700s and was intended to refer to all people, not only men. The reasonable man standard evolved into the reasonable person standard. However, the meaning remained the same; specifically, that it is gender-free. Gutek, et al. detail (1999) several criticisms of the reasonable person standard when applied to sexual harassment and how, out of the criticisms, the reasonable woman standard arose. In an attempt to make decision-makers focus more explicitly on the perspective of a female victim of harassment, the reasonable woman standard states that individuals should consider what a reasonable woman would do in a situation similar to that of the situation being considered. The purpose of this focus is to account for circumstances which men may consider harmless, but women consider harassing. The

14 14 reasonable person and reasonable woman standards are both legal standards used when determining whether sexual harassment has occurred. However, the reasonableness of these standards is very much perceptual in nature. What one individual considers reasonable may differ from what another individual considers reasonable. It is important to note that regardless of the various standards employed by the court system, each allegation of sexual harassment is evaluated on its own characteristics, such that no one ruling will apply across instances. Each incident is considered on a caseby-case basis, which ultimately involves the perceptual nature of sexual harassment (EEOC, 1980). Perceptions of sexual harassment Legal aspects of perceptions of sexual harassment. When deciding whether an incident qualifies as sexual harassment, the perceptions of the individuals involved must be taken into account. Depending on the form of sexual harassment, and who is judging the incident, different perspectives will be acknowledged. In the legal arena, the victim s perception of the incident receives greater weight. Specifically, regardless of whether the harasser intended for the behaviors to be sexually harassing, if the victim feels as though he/she has been harassed, the fact that the individual feels that harassment has occurred is enough to warrant investigation (Popovich, 1988). In quid pro quo sexual harassment, the harasser s intention is fairly straight-forward. When examining hostile environment harassment claims, however, intentions are less obvious. In these cases, the perceptions of both parties involved must be considered. For example, if an individual who is telling sexually explicit jokes in the workplace does not have the intention of sexually harassing or offending those around him, but a group of female co-workers feel as though they have

15 been harassed, the appropriate disciplinary action that is needed (if any) is less clear 15 and the perceptions of all the individuals involved must be taken into account. Individual differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. A major example of how perceptions can affect sexual harassment outcomes involves gender differences, such that men and women often differ on their perceptions of what constitutes sexual harassment (Blumenthal, 1998). In his meta-analysis, Blumenthal reported that while there were many gender effects found across his sample of studies, a number of characteristics impacted the size of gender effects, including; the type of protocol (e.g., narratives), type of stimulus materials (e.g., legal setting), time of study (recent or not-sorecent), and type of participants (students or workers). Rotundo, Nguyen, and Sackett (2001) also conducted a meta-analysis on gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Unlike Blumenthal (1998), these researchers did not combine all forms of sexual harassment. Rotundo and colleagues gathered information on the types of behaviors that previous researchers have been using to describe instances of sexual harassment and broke them into 7 categories. Six of these categories (derogatory attitudes- impersonal, derogatory attitudes- personal, unwanted dating pressure, sexual propositions, physical sexual contact, and physical nonsexual contact) corresponded to hostile environment sexual harassment, while the final category (sexual coercion) corresponded to quid pro quo sexual harassment. Their results showed that while women tended to perceive more behaviors as sexual harassment, the gender differences seemed to occur more often with the less severe categories, such as physical nonsexual contact and sexual propositions. Gender differences were much smaller for the sexual coercion harassment behaviors.

16 16 When taken together, the results of these two meta-analyses indicate that, while there are gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment, these differences are variable and may not be as severe as they were once believed to be. Gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment have changed over time. The U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board report (1995) includes a table indicating the percentages of men and women who endorsed six general categories of behaviors as constituting sexual harassment. The categories included; pressure for sexual favors, deliberate touching and cornering, suggestive letters, calls, or other materials, pressure for dates, suggestive looks or gestures, and sexual teasing, jokes, or other remarks. The report presents figures from the 1980, 1987, and 1994 surveys. In general, a greater percentage of men and women endorsed pressure for dates, suggestive looks or gestures, and sexual teasing, jokes, or other remarks as constituting sexual harassment in the 1987 and 1994 surveys than did in the 1980 survey. The increase was often nearly 20% more respondents endorsing these behaviors as harassment. Furthermore, while the male respondents had fewer endorsements across all categories and years, the figures from 1987 and 1994 are much closer to the figures reported by female respondents to the surveys. Overall, both male and female respondents to the surveys report more behaviors as constituting sexual harassment in the later surveys. Also, while male respondents reported more the behaviors as harassment, these rates are still less than those of the female respondents. There appears to be the greatest disparity between male and female endorsements for the less serious categories, such as suggestive looks or gestures, and sexual teasing, jokes, or other remarks. It has been suggested that sexual harassment

17 behavior reflects a more general social phenomenon, that of men s misperceptions of 17 women s friendliness as sexual interest (Stockdale, 1993; Abbey, 1987). Stockdale (1993) has discussed ways in which women s friendliness can be misperceived by some men as what the author labels as sexiness. This misperception by men may be misconstrued as either an invitation for sexual behavior or at the very least, an acceptance of such behavior, which opens the door for sexual harassment. Some women have very outgoing and friendly personalities, which lead them to engage men in conversation in an open and forward manner. From the perspective of some men, the women pursuing pleasant conversation with them can be seen as exhibiting sexiness rather than mere friendliness. Depending on how the woman responds to the man s advances, it is not difficult to see how harmless flirting could escalate to perceived sexual harassment. Stockdale stated that it could also come down to characteristics of the individual man as to whether the woman will perceive flirtatious behavior as sexual harassment. Specifically, if a man has expressed degrading or controlling views about women, his behavior may be perceived as harassment. However, if a man has expressed generally positive opinions about women, his behavior may be more likely to be viewed as harmless flirtation. Throughout her work, Stockdale cites research by Abbey also dealing with misperceptions of behavior. Abbey (1987) conducted two studies to examine participants past experiences with misperceptions of friendly behavior as sexual interest. The results of the two studies showed that, while misperceptions were common, they were most often of the type that men were misperceiving women s friendly behavior as sexual interest. Male and female participants reported differing results from the misperceptions. When discussing how the

18 participants became aware of the misperceptions, Abby stated that women were more 18 often physically touched by their misperceivers (thus realizing that the men had misunderstood the women s intentions), whereas men were more often made aware by others or by the women themselves of the misperception. In response to the misperception, women were likely to stop the touching, although men were more likely to either go along with the behavior or simply ignore it. It is clear that perceptions of sexual harassment are important to consider when evaluating incidents of sexual harassment. One aspect of such incidents that can become important is the relative perceptions of power that each individual has. For example, an individual who is being subjected to potentially harassing behaviors by someone who they perceive to have a great amount of power over them may have a drastically different reaction to the behavior than someone who is being subjected to the same behaviors by an individual with little or no power over him or her. Summary. While gender plays an important role in sexual harassment, the relative power that individuals possess can have a substantial impact on perceptions of potentially harassing behaviors. Popovich, Licata, Nokovich, Martelli, and Zoloty (1986) assessed the incidence and perceptions of sexual harassment behaviors in a way that begins to hint at the influences of power on perceptions of sexual harassment. In the second of the two included experiments, participants were more likely to state that a behavior was harassment if the perpetrator was in a supervisory position over the victim. Others (e.g. Cleveland & Kerst, 1993) have also noted the importance of formal, position power. Specifically, that while co-worker harassment is more common, supervisor harasser is deemed more severe. While position power in an organization is the most salient, there

19 19 are several other models of sexual harassment that must be considered when examining sexual harassment and power. Each of these models can be examined strictly as a model of sexual harassment or as a model of power. Combining the sexual harassment and power aspects of these models will help us to investigate this phenomenon. Models of sexual harassment There are five major models of sexual harassment which will be reviewed: biological/evolutionary (Tangri & Hayes, 1997), sociological (Wilson & Thompson, 2001), organizational (Cleveland & Kerst, 1993), individual (Tangri & Hayes, 1997), and feminist (Lips, 1991). While none of these models are specifically being endorsed in the current examination of contrapower sexual harassment, these models represent some of the theories that have been advanced to explain why sexual harassment occurs. Not all of these models have received empirical support, but some have important implications for understanding why harassment continues to exist in today s organizations. Biological/Evolutionary models. The biological or evolutionary model relies on sex and aggression components, as these are two of human beings primary drives (Tangri & Hayes, 1997, p.113). This model describes sexual harassment as coming from a biological basis. Specifically, since men have stronger sex (hormonal) drives, the resulting behavior is the sexual harassment of women. Tangri and Hayes describe two of the prominent biological models of sexual harassment. The hormonal model states that sexual harassment is merely a reflection of human hormonal drives. That is, men become harassers because they are simply following their hormonal desires to act on their urges. If the hormonal model reflected reality, however, older women at their sexual peak would

20 also be likely harassers and this does not appear to be the case, according to the 20 authors. There is little empirical support for the hormonal model. An additional variation of the biological model is the Evolutionary Adaptation model. Tangri and Hayes (1997) state that the sexual harassment of women under this model occurs because men strive to impregnate as many women as possible to further their genes. It is beneficial for men to make sexual advances toward as many women as possible. The authors write that women must be more selective with regards to sexual encounters, due to the investment required to successfully raise children. Because of this investment, women view repeated sexual advances in a more negative light than do men. The Evolutionary Adaptation model creates a conflict of interest between men and women, and does not explain all observed sexual harassment behaviors or even other logically predictable behaviors. Like the hormonal model, this model has not been well supported (Tangri & Hayes, 1997). The authors conclude with a statement summing up the evidence for these models: At best, we can only conclude that the evidence for the natural/biological model, with its contradictory derivations, is mixed and, worse, not falsifiable (pp. 116). Finally, although not specifically tied in to either the hormonal model or the Evolutionary Adaptation model, another biological aspect of sexual harassment and power includes physical size. For instance, because men are generally physically larger than women, it is fairly simple to imagine how a woman could feel threatened into submitting to sexually harassing behaviors from a man because she is intimidated by his physical size relative to her own size.

21 Sociological models. The second major model is the sociological approach to 21 sexual harassment. Wilson and Thompson (2001) describe Lukes three-dimensional, sociological model of power and apply it to sexual harassment. The first dimension is simply one person s interests prevailing over those of another individual in decision making. Wilson and Thompson incorporate this dimension into sexual harassment such that men use their societal power to give weight to their sexual advances, winning out over the protesting interests of women. Lukes second dimension adds a structural element to the mix, such that powerful individuals have the ability to prevent action being taken on issues for which they feel are unimportant or pushing action on subjectively important issues. For example, upper level management often has the power to make decisions on whether disciplinary action will be taken against harassers within an organization. If managers, who may also be harassers, do not want to address the problem within the organization, it is likely that sexual harassment will never be dealt with. The third, and final, dimension that Wilson and Thompson discuss moves to the deep structures of power. This is the idea that the structure of power is so ingrained that individuals without power do not question the system; therefore, sexual harassment is not a reported issue. For example, the dominance of men over women is so ingrained in the organization that when a man asserts his power over a woman in a harassing way, it seems natural and she does not take his behavior as a form of sexual harassment: She has learned to cope with this type of behavior as an every-day part of her work life. Wilson and Thompson s explanation and utilization of Lukes three-dimensional model of power illustrate how power roles can become institutionalized within society.

22 Furthermore, the model illustrates how women may become desensitized to sexual 22 harassment stemming from power and may not report harassing behaviors. Wilson and Thompson are not the only authors to suggest that the status structure can become ingrained in society. Tangri and Hayes (1997) state that, There is general agreement in the literature about the characteristics of the sex stratification system and the socialization patterns that maintain it (pp. 120). The main idea behind the sociological model has received support in the literature. Organizational models. The third model of sexual harassment is the organizational model. Much research as been conducted examining the influence of position power on sexual harassment. According to Cleveland and Kerst (1993), organizational power refers to the power structure within an organization; specifically, looking at who holds which positions of power. Ragins and Sundstrom (1989), in their discussion of gender and power in organizations, discuss aspects of an organization that can influence who rises to positions of power. These aspects include entry into the organization and promotion. The manner used to publicize job openings to attract applicants can affect the types of people who will be drawn to the organization. One example of this process is the old boy network, where only certain people are made aware of important information. Promotion methods within an organization also clearly influence the individuals with power. Both Cleveland and Kerst (1993) and Ragins and Sundstrom (1989) focus on the idea that through various operations in an organization, men tend to hold more positions of power within organizations. Individuals with power may feel that they have the authority to make demands on less powerful individuals, and less powerful individuals

23 may then feel pressure to give in to such demands (Eagly, 1983). When applied to 23 sexual harassment, the organizational model demonstrates how men can become sexual harassers of women. Men move higher and more quickly through the organizational hierarchy, which affords them more power to make sexual demands of women who will likely be in a greater number of subordinate positions. These women may feel compelled to comply with requests for sexual behaviors for fear of repercussions, including losing their jobs. Another component of the organization that can lead to sexual harassment behaviors involves the proportion of each gender employed by the organization. Gender proportion becomes important in the workplace when examining phenomena such as the sex-role spillover effect. Gutek and Cohen (1987) described sex-role spillover as an individual s work life being affected by his or her sex-roles. They write that individuals in predominately opposite-sex typed occupations are generally the most affected by sexrole spillover. Men and women have drastically different sex roles, with women being described as warm, friendly, homemakers and men being described as strong, professional, assertive, breadwinners. When these characteristics meet the workplace, expectations for behavior arise. For example, people are more adept at interacting with people in ways that are congruent with their assumed sex-roles. Problems develop when the expected sex roles do not apply to someone and others do not adapt. Sex-role spillover implies that a woman working in a predominately male area, management or otherwise, will often be seen as a woman first, and a worker second. Gutek draws from work by Kanter in describing the importance of the gender breakdown in the workplace.

24 Kanter (1977) describes 4 types of groups of people that can be found in 24 organizations based on the ratio of men to women. Uniform groups consist of entirely one sex. Skewed groups have a few members of one sex and many members of the other. Tilted groups move closer to equality but are not quite to that point. In this type of group, one group becomes the majority, and the other the minority. Finally, in a balanced group, the sexes are represented in equal numbers. The group of interest in sex-roll spillover cases is the skewed group. Kanter writes that the few token members in the group will not be seen as individuals, but as representatives, or symbols, of their group (pp. 208). When applied to sex-roles, the few women in male-dominated occupations (e.g., management) become symbols of womanhood, and not of workers. Gutek and Cohen (1987) discuss the effects of sex-role spillover as being more negative for women than for men, such that women experiencing sex-role spillover are more likely to be the targets of sexual advances and sexual harassment by men. Men in typically female-typed jobs are much less likely to be the targets of sexual behaviors from women. This finding is partially because the effects are found for individuals who work in opposite-sex typed jobs, and men are not usually the minority, especially if management is being studied. Women who are in predominately male jobs, however, are very visible as being a minority. Sex-role spillover is a prominent theory in sexual harassment research. The sexual harassment of women in organizations is theorized to develop because men fail to see past a female employee s sex, viewing her as little more than a possible target for his sexual interest. Instead of perceiving his female co-workers as equals and professionals, a

25 25 man sees female co-workers as sex objects. This misperception of women s roles in the workplace opens the door to sexual harassment, regardless of whether it was intentional. Tangri and Hayes (1997) note that the principles behind sex-role spillover have been supported in the research literature. The following predictions of the theory have received support: Women working in male-typed jobs perceive that they are treated differently, and that this behavior is directed at their sex and is perceived as harassment; women working in female-typed jobs are less likely to report discriminatory or harassing behavior, as are women who work in balanced environments. Individual models. The fourth model of sexual harassment is the individual model. This model deals with which characteristics will make someone more or less likely to become a harasser or a victim. Tangri and Hayes (1997) state that individual differences are generally examined from two different points of view. The first approach studies the differences between harassers and non-harassers, and the second approach investigates the characteristics of individuals who perceive incidents of sexual harassment and what makes these individuals decide whether the incident truly was harassment. Pryor (1987) developed the Likelihood to Sexually Harass scale to examine the characteristics of harassers. The scale was developed for men, as they are primarily the harassers. Results showed that the scale was correlated with other scales and measures including; likelihood to rape, sex-role stereotyping, and acceptance of interpersonal violence. Harassers also seemed to lack the ability to view incidents from the perspective of others. This research demonstrates that there do appear to be individual difference variables that distinguish between harassers and non-harassers.

26 Tangri and Hayes (1997) also address the characteristics of individuals and 26 incidents that make it more or less likely for behavior to be considered sexual harassment. This discussion again centers on the previously discussed gender differences in perceptions of potentially sexually harassing behaviors. Further evidence for this gender difference in perceptions of behaviors can be found in Levesque, Nave, and Lowe (2006). In their study investigating gender differences in inferring sexual interest, the researchers found that after two individuals would have a brief conversation and rate the interaction, men would tend to oversexualize the interactions to a greater extent than would women. The authors took this result as evidence to support the general finding that men think in a more sexual manner than do women. Similar to the previous discussion of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment, the results of this study demonstrate how women s merely friendly behaviors can be interpreted as sexual interest by men, further providing evidence for gender differences in perceptions. This miscommunication may lead men to behave in a manner that is perceived to be sexual harassment by women. Feminist models. The fifth, and final, model is the feminist approach. Lips (1991) states that a basic assumption underlying the feminist model is that men and women hold different amounts of power. This concept is similar to that proposed in the sociological and organizational models of power in which the structure of power is deeply ingrained. The feminist approach also asserts that the power structure is deeply ingrained in society such that men have more power. Feminists work to improve the power status of women in society. Lips describes the debate among feminist theorists as to what the appropriate move is regarding the power differential between the genders. This debate divides power

27 into two types. The first is power over others, or the bad power. The second is the 27 power to accomplish one s goals, or the good power. Lips asserts that feminists aim to achieve the good power, while not necessarily achieving the bad power. The author writes that this goal will bring each individual the power to control his or her life, while not placing any individual over another. These two types of power cannot be completely separated, however, because as Lips states, once an individual grows in the ability to achieve personal goals and begins feeling more empowered, there is an increased likelihood that this individual will challenge authority and behave in ways that can mirror the bad power over others. The feminist model acknowledges that while the power to achieve goals is the desirable power, power over others is necessary to some extent to avoid a structureless society. The power inequality between the genders can lead to sexual harassment. Lips (1991) describes a situation in which a subordinate female must participate in sexual acts with her boss to avoid being fired. The man has so much power over this woman that she stays silent about the incident and begins to feel as though this man has made her powerless through his actions. This incident demonstrates the idea that men can continue to hold women in powerless positions which can cause them to submit to sexual advances. Summary. Although these models seem to point to the conclusion that men, and generally only men, are harassers, it is important to note that not all men are, or will become, sexual harassers. The previously-mentioned Likelihood to Sexually Harass scale developed by Pryor (1987) can be used to determine which men possess characteristics that may put them at greater risk for sexually harassing others. The idea for this research

28 stemmed, in part, from literature examining responses to a scale addressing the 28 likelihood that a man would rape a woman if there was no chance that he would be caught and punished. Researchers in this area noted that extreme forms of sexual harassment can be similar to rape, suggesting that perhaps sexual harassers and rapists may also be similar in some respects. In order to investigate this relationship, Pryor began working on the development of the LSH scale to determine characteristics of sexual harassers. Like the Likelihood to Rape scale, the LSH scale included a series of scenarios followed by a group of possible actions that could be taken. One of the possibilities involves the man sexually harassing a woman without the possibility of negative consequences. In a series of 3 studies, Pryor found that men who score highly on the LSH scale are likely to hold adversarial sexual beliefs, have difficulty empathizing with others, have higher proclivities to rape, be higher in authoritarianism and lower on Machiavellianism, hold negative feelings about sexuality, describe themselves in ways that differentiate themselves from femininity, and act in a sexualized manner towards others when the situation provides an opportunity or excuse for the behavior. The LSH scale provides a way to determine which men may be likely to become sexual harassers. By examining the list of characteristics provided above, it is clear that not all men will qualify as harassers. The influence of power in sexual harassment The five models described above offer a wide variety of ways that sexual harassment can be conceptualized and described. One common thread that can be drawn through each of the models is that power can play a central role in sexual harassment. In the biological/evolutionary model of sexual harassment, power can manifest itself in the

29 physical size advantage that men generally have over women, since men tend to be 29 both larger and stronger. In the sociological model, power is seen as a masculine trait that is a socially constructed part of male sex roles. Therefore, in this model, too, men have more power than women. The organizational model and the individual model both look at characteristics of those who hold power, either (more formally) as a part of an organization or (less formally) as an individual. One model that has been widely used in the literature that includes both formal and informal power is French and Raven s (1959) model of individual sources of power. This model has been used to explain power at various levels, especially the organizational and individual levels. The sources of power included in this model are legitimate, reward, coercive, referent, expert, and informational power. Each of these sources of power can be tied to the various models of sexual harassment at different levels. For example, legitimate, reward, and coercive powers can all fit within the organizational model, such that individuals higher up in the organization s hierarchy of power will, by virtue of their positions, possess legitimate power. An increase in formal power comes with more opportunities to use reward and coercive powers. A more thorough description of each of French and Raven s (1959) and Raven s (1965) sources of power will be helpful in demonstrating how each of these powers fits into the four classifications. Legitimate power, or position power, is held by individuals with a formal, hierarchical position of power and can be specifically applied to the organizational models of sexual harassment. For instance, a professor has legitimate power over his or her students because the students recognize that their professors are in a position of

30 authority with influence over grades and other course outcomes (Dziech & Weiner, ). Operating under the organizational model in which a harasser has position (legitimate) power over his/her victim, a professor might make advances toward a student while at school, as well as make suggestive phone calls to the student. Reward power stems from the ability to bestow rewards, and similarly, coercive power comes from the ability to punish others. An example of the use of reward power in the organizational model would be that a superior tells his employee that if she has sex with him, he will promote her to a higher-paying position. A simple example of coercive power in an organization is the situation of a manager threatening the job of his secretary unless she agrees to his demands. Legitimate, reward, and coercive power are all considered positional powers: supervisors are generally seen as having these sources of power from the perspective of a subordinate employee. Referent power is the ability to make others want to be like you. This type of power occurs when an individual identifies with someone else to the extent that he or she strives to be like that person, thus bestowing referent power upon him or her. Out of all of the models of sexual harassment, referent power fits most easily within the individual model. For example, an individual possessing referent power over another would be able to use the fact that the victim wants to identify with him/her to extract sexual favors. While the victim chooses to comply with demands (because he or she wants to be like the harasser), the harasser could easily use this power to encourage participation in harassing behaviors. Expert power is based on the acquisition of skills or knowledge. An individual has this power if he or she can demonstrate more knowledge than others. A professor holds

31 this form of power over students, in addition to legitimate power. A supervisor could 31 deny an employee access to necessary information unless the employee submits to sexual behaviors. This situation is an example of how this individual power (thus applying to the individual models of sexual harassment) can be used to perpetuate sexual harassment. The final type of individual power is informational power, or the control over communication and persuasion. One can hold a great deal of power if he or she has the ability to use communication, information, and persuasive arguments to his or her advantage. While expert and informational powers may seem as though they would be less likely to be abused in sexual harassment, these powers could be used as bargaining chips by a harasser in his or her attempt to gain sexual favors. Referent, expert, and informational power all tend to be individual powers and can, therefore, be applied to the individual model of sexual harassment. Each of these sources of power can be viewed as individual difference variables belonging to certain people. These people, most likely men, will have power over others and may be more able to exert sexually harassing behaviors on those without power. These men may be more likely to abuse their powers if they possess the individual dispositional characteristics described earlier in the discussion of Pryor s Likelihood to Sexually Harass scale. The social and feminist models are also applicable here because both assert that men (in society and in relation to women) have more power. It is more likely, therefore, that men will be in possession of the different powers outlined in French and Raven s (1959) model of power. These different types of power are also reflected in Ragins and Sundstrom s (1989) approach. Ragins and Sundstrom describe four different classifications of power

32 reflecting different levels that overlap with French and Raven s sources of power. 32 Ragins and Sundstrom s classifications include position power, interpersonal relationships, individual sources of power, and combinations of sources of power. Position power overlaps nicely with legitimate, reward, and coercive powers such that these powers all stem from one s position within a power hierarchy. Those at the top of the hierarchy will possess more of each of these powers. Legitimate, reward, and coercive powers can be difficult to tease apart as separate powers, however all three powers are usually a function of position power. The second category, interpersonal relationships, refers to powers that deal with direction of influence (p. 52). Direction of influence is illustrated well by Ragins and Sundstrom s example of a supervisor and subordinate having a downward direction of influence such that the supervisor s power flows down through the organization to the subordinate. Power stemming from interpersonal relationships can also be defined in terms of identification, such as French and Raven s referent power, in which one individual strives to be like another. Ragins and Sundstrom s (1989) third classification of power is individual sources of power which refer to characteristics of an individual. Expert and informational power both fall under this category because these are sources of power that an individual possesses; someone has a large amount of knowledge or information desired or needed by others, thus this person has these sources of power. The final classification of power is the combinations of sources of power. Individuals may possess more than one of these powers at any given time. Ragins and Sundstrom (1989) describe three hypotheses regarding the effects of combinations of powers. The first states that the more sources of power an individual possesses, the more