Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
R. Wiener, Ryan Winter, Melanie Rogers, L. Arnot (2004)
The Effects of Prior Workplace Behavior on Subsequent Sexual Harassment JudgmentsLaw and Human Behavior, 28
Kristen Yount (1991)
LADIES, FLIRTS, AND TOMBOYSJournal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19
D. Terpstra, D. Baker (1987)
A hierarchy of sexual harassment.The Journal of psychology, 121 6
Margaret Stockdale, Susan Bisom-Rapp, M. O'Connor, B. Gutek (2004)
Coming to Terms with Zero Tolerance Sexual Harassment PoliciesJournal of Forensic Psychology Practice, 4
P. Glick, S. Fiske (1996)
The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70
Maria Rotundo, Dung-Hanh Nguyen, P. Sackett (2001)
A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment.The Journal of applied psychology, 86 5
D. Baker, D. Terpstra, B. Cutler (1990)
Perceptions of sexual harassment: a re-examination of gender differences.The Journal of psychology, 124 4
A. Konrad, B. Gutek (1986)
Impact of Work Experiences on Attitudes toward Sexual Harassment.Administrative Science Quarterly, 31
B. A. Gutek (1985)
Sex and the workplace: Impact of sexual behavior and harassment on women, men and organizations
P. Frazier, Caroline Cochran, A. Olson (1995)
Social Science Research on Lay Definitions of Sexual HarassmentJournal of Social Issues, 51
R. Wiener, L. Hurt, B. Russell, Kelley Mannen, Charles Gasper (1997)
Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: The Effects of Gender, Legal Standard, and Ambivalent SexismLaw and Human Behavior, 21
B. A. Gutek, M. O'Connor (1995)
The empirical basis for the reasonable woman standard in sexual harassment lawJournal of Social Issues: Gender Stereotyping, Sexual Harassment, and the Law, 51
Jeremy Blumenthal (1998)
The Reasonable Woman Standard: A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences in Perceptions of Sexual HarassmentLaw and Human Behavior, 22
J. Bargh, Paula Raymond (1995)
The Naive Misuse of Power: Nonconscious Sources of Sexual HarassmentJournal of Social Issues, 51
P. Glick, S. T. Fiske (2001)
An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary explanations for gender equalityAmerican Psychologist, 56
K. R. Yount (1991)
Ladies, flirts, and tomboys: Strategies for managing sexual harassment in an underground coal mineJournal of Contemporary Ethnography, 19
M. Gowan, R. Zimmermann (1996)
Impact of Ethnicity, Gender, and Previous Experience on Juror Judgments in Sexual Harassment Cases1Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26
Margaret Stockdale, M. O'Connor, B. Gutek, Tracey Geer (2002)
The relationship between prior sexual abuse and reactions to sexual harrassment: Literature review and empirical study.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 8
D. Mazer, Elizabeth Percival (1989)
Ideology or experience? The relationships among perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of sexual harassment in university studentsSex Roles, 20
B. Gutek, M. O'Connor, Renée Melançon, Margaret Stockdale, Tracey Geer, R. Done (1999)
The utility of the reasonable woman legal standard in hostile environment sexual harassment cases: A multimethod, multistudy examination.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 5
S. Kenig, John Ryan (1986)
Sex differences in levels of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campusSex Roles, 15
M. Reilly, B. Lott, Sheila Gallogly (1986)
Sexual harassment of university studentsSex Roles, 15
Peter Glick, S. Fiske (2001)
An ambivalent alliance. Hostile and benevolent sexism as complementary justifications for gender inequality.The American psychologist, 56 2
Jean Adams, J. Kottke, Janet Padgitt (1983)
Sexual Harassment of University StudentsJournal of College Student Personnel, 24
M. O'Connor (1998)
Dissertations Abstract International
D. Foulis, M. McCabe (1997)
Sexual harassment: factors affecting attitudes and perceptionsSex Roles, 37
M. Kovera, B. McAuliff, K. Hebert (1999)
Reasoning about scientific evidence: effects of juror gender and evidence quality on juror decisions in a hostile work environment case.The Journal of applied psychology, 84 3
M. Kovera, Melissa Russano, B. McAuliff (2002)
Assessment of the commonsense psychology underlying Daubert: Legal decision makers' abilities to evaluate expert evidence in hostile work environment cases.Psychology, Public Policy and Law, 8
Peter Glick, S. Fiske, B. Adetoun, Annetje Brunner, Tineke Willemsen, K. Chipeta, B. Dardenne, A. Dijksterhuis, Miguel Moya, Hyun-Jeong Kim, M. Lameiras, Maria Sotelo, Angelica Mucchi-Faina, Myrna Romani, Nuray Sakalh, Bola Udegbe, Maria Ferreira, Wilson Lopez (2000)
Beyond prejudice as simple antipathy: hostile and benevolent sexism across cultures.Journal of personality and social psychology, 79 5
L. Fitzgerald, S. Shullman, Nancy Bailey, M. Richards, Janice Swecker, Yael Gold, M. Ormerod, L. Weitzman (1988)
The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace.Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32
R. Wiener, A. Hackney, Karen Kadela, S. Rauch, H. Seib, L. Warren, L. Hurt (2002)
The fit and implementation of sexual harassment law to workplace evaluations.The Journal of applied psychology, 87 4
Gerald Blakely, Eleanor Blakely, R. Moorman (1995)
The relationship between gender, personal experience, and perceptions of sexual harassment in the workplaceEmployee Responsibilities and Rights Journal, 8
Organizational Psychology,
R. Wiener, L. Hurt (2000)
How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model.The Journal of applied psychology, 85 1
B. Gutek, M. O'Connor (1995)
The Empirical Basis for the Reasonable Woman StandardJournal of Social Issues, 51
R. F. Martel, D. M. Lane, C. Emrich (1996)
Male–female differences: A computer simulationAmerican Psychologist, 51
In two decades of research on sexual harassment, one finding that appears repeatedly is that gender of the rater influences judgments about sexual harassment such that women are more likely than men to label behavior as sexual harassment. Yet, sexual harassment judgments are complex, particularly in situations that culminate in legal proceedings. And, this one variable, gender, may have been overemphasized to the exclusion of other situational and rater characteristic variables. Moreover, why do gender differences appear? As work by Wiener and his colleagues have done (R. L. Wiener et al., 2002; R. L. Wiener & L. Hurt, 2000; R. L. Wiener, L. Hurt, B. Russell, K. Mannen, & C. Gasper, 1997), this study attempts to look beyond gender to answer this question. In the studies reported here, raters (undergraduates and community adults), either read a written scenario or viewed a videotaped reenactment of a sexual harassment trial. The nature of the work environment was manipulated to see what, if any, effect the context would have on gender effects. Additionally, a number of rater characteristics beyond gender were measured, including ambivalent sexism attitudes of the raters, their judgments of complainant credibility, and self-referencing that might help explain rater judgments. Respondent gender, work environment, and community vs. student sample differences produced reliable differences in sexual harassment ratings in both the written and video trial versions of the study. The gender and sample differences in the sexual harassment ratings, however, are explained by a model which incorporates hostile sexism, perceptions of the complainant's credibility, and raters' own ability to put themselves in the complainant's position (self-referencing).
Law and Human Behavior – Springer Journals
Published: Oct 21, 2004
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.