1
Running head: PERCEPTIONS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT
Perceptions of Sexual Harassment: An Evolutionary Perspective
Stephen M. Colarelli and Stephanie Haaland
Department of Psychology
Central Michigan University
2
Abstract
Much of what we know about perceptions of hostile-environment sexual harassment
remains unclear; therefore, scholars have called for greater theory development and theoryguided research. We present an evolutionary psychological framework for understanding sexual
harassment perceptions and use that perspective to examine the effects of age, sex, status, and
power on perceptions of hostile-environment harassment. In Study 1, we examined the effects of
observer age, sex, and behavioral severity on harassment perceptions. Age had a significant
effect, with older women viewing sexually-toned behaviors as more harassing than younger
women. Observer sex also had a significant effect, with females perceiving sexually-toned
behaviors—primarily the severe behaviors—as more harassing. Behavioral severity had a strong
and significant effect on perceptions of both sexes. In Study 2, we examined how initiator status
and power affected harassment perceptions. As expected, initiator power had a strong main
effect on perceptions, whereas initiator status had no effect. Interactions revealed that
harassment perceptions increased as power increased and as status decreased. The results were
generally consistent with sexual selection theory. We conclude with suggestions for policies
related to perceptions and accusations of sexual harassment in the workplace.
With the increasing integration of women and men in the work place, the incidents of
sexual harassment have increased—some surveys reporting that as many as 53% of women
experienced sexual harassment at work (Gutek, 1985). The Equal Employment Opportunity
Commission (EEOC) in the US defines two broad categories of sexual harassment (EEOC,
1980). The first is "quid pro quo" harassment, where sexual favors are solicited in exchange for
3
job-related rewards or to avoid negative consequences. For example, a supervisor propositions a
subordinate and implies that unless she sleeps with him she will loose her job. The second type
of sexual harassment is "hostile-environment" harassment. Hostile-environment harassment
involves unwelcome behaviors of a sexual nature that are perceived as creating a hostile or
offensive work environment. A person making a claim of hostile-environment harassment must
show “the work environment is permeated with sexuality or ‘discriminatory intimidation,
ridicule, and insult’….The plaintiff making a hostile-environment claim must show that she was
subjected to ‘unwelcome’ conduct, based upon her sex” (Browne, 2002, p. 192). While the
definition of quid pro quo harassment is clear, attempts to define hostile-environment harassment
continue to generate controversy, and its definition remains ambiguous (Bennet-Alexander &
Pincus, 1995; Browne, 2002; Lengnick-Hall, 1995).1 The courts in the US and scholars are
divided over whether the standard for the perception of a hostile-environment should be that of a
“reasonable person” or a “reasonable woman.” People frequently construe sexually ambiguous
behaviors quite differently. Men are more likely to interpret a relatively innocuous behavior
from a woman as a sign of sexual interest, whereas women interpret the same behavior as just
being friendly (Abbey, 1982). Women are more likely than men to regard a sexual innuendo as
unwelcome (Buss, 1994). Despite efforts by the courts and others to impose objectivity,
definitive boundaries of what constitutes hostile-environment sexual harassment remain unclear
(Lengnick-Hall, 1995). As a result, employees and organizations can have difficulty recognizing
when sexual harassment has occurred. This ambiguity can be detrimental to targets of
harassment who may be hesitant to report behavior they perceive as offensive because they are
unsure that others will regard it as harassment. It can also be detrimental to those accused of
harassment when there is little consensus that a behavior was offensive. Additionally, it can be
4
detrimental to organizations that do not recognize the problem and fail to develop clear
definitions of hostile-environment harassment and procedures for dealing with it.
Both men and women – but especially women – view severe sexually-toned behaviors as
inappropriate and label them as sexual harassment (e.g., Hurt, Maver, & Hoffman, 1999).
Unfortunately, most studies of severity included incidents of both quid pro quo and hostileenvironment harassment in their stimulus materials (e.g., Baker, Terpstra, & Cutler, 1991; Tata,
1993). Therefore, it remains unclear how perceptions are affected when behaviors are limited to
gradations of hostile-environment harassment stimuli. People do not inevitably categorize
sexually toned behaviors as sexual harassment. Saying “you look nice today” implies a
perception of attractiveness and is mildly sexually-toned, but it does not necessarily mean that
the comment is universally construed as sexually harassing. However, if it were perceived as
unwelcome and offensive, then it could be considered sexual harassment.
In addition to the ambiguity surrounding hostile-environment harassment, two other areas
associated with the perception of sexual harassment are problematic: individual differences in
perception and the influence of initiator status and power on perceptions. Early research tended
to treat sexual harassment as a unitary phenomenon in which all women were assumed to
perceive and experience harassment in a similar manner. However, more recent research
suggests that individual differences among women affect perceptions of sexually-toned behaviors
(Ellis, Barak, & Pinto, 1991). Such results raise the questions of what individual differences are
most likely to account for differences in same-sex perceptions and why? Similarly, the power
and status of male initiators have been widely associated with sexual harassment perceptions.
Power and status have different meanings, and it is not clear that they have similar effects on
harassment perceptions. Although several studies suggest that their effects on harassment
5
perceptions are less clear than previously assumed (Hurt, et al., 1999; Jones, Remland, &
Brunner, 1987; Littler-Bishop, Seidler-Feller, & Opaluch, 1982), relatively little research exists
on the comparative effects of male power and status and on the mechanisms that might influence
how they harassment perceptions.
Because of these and other complexities, scholars have called for more theory
development and theory-guided research (Browne, 1997; Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993). The
objectives of this paper are to: (1) examine how perceptions of sexual harassment are affected
when sexually-toned behaviors are limited to gradations of hostile-environment harassment
stimuli; (2) present an evolutionary psychological framework for understanding hostileenvironment sexual harassment perceptions, and (3) use that perspective to examine the effects
of target age and initiator status and power on perceptions of hostile-environment harassment.
Sexual Harassment Perceptions from an Evolutionary Perspective
Evolutionary psychology provides a useful framework for studying perceptions of
sexually-toned behaviors (Studd & Gattiker, 1991). Just as natural selection shaped human
morphology and physiology, it also influenced people's behavioral and psychological repertoires.
This may be particularly evident in human sexual behavior, where evolved psychological
mechanisms influence the occurrence and perceptions of sexual behavior (Hrdy, 1999; Low,
2000). Parental investment and female choice are two concepts from evolutionary psychology
that are particularly relevant to sexual harassment perceptions.
Parental investment and female choice. Parental investment refers to the effort and
resources devoted to an offspring that improves its chances of survival and that also limit the
parent’s ability to invest in other offspring (Trivers, 1972). Because of the physiological and
psychological demands associated with gestation, birth, lactation, and attachment, human
6
females invest more in offspring than males. In some species, however, males are the more
investing sex—for example, the pipefish seahorse, Mormon cricket, and Panamanian poison
arrow frog.
Female choice refers to females’ dominant role in mate selection. Because of the effort
required to care for young, it is in the reproductive interests of the more investing sex to be
selective in mate choice (Trivers, 1972). It is, therefore, in a human female’s reproductive
interests to mate with “high quality” males (Cronin, 1991; Small, 1992). It is to the female’s
advantage to choose a mate who is committed to her and who has the ability to assist in
providing for her offspring. This helps ensure that the female will have adequate resources and
security to rear her young. Women have more to lose from mating with someone whom they do
not choose to mate with. They may end up pregnant without a mate to help care for the child and
possibly with a child who may be sickly and difficult to care for. Sexual coercion, therefore, has
potentially more negative consequences to women than men, and therefore women are more
likely than men to react negatively to coercive sexual strategies (Petralia & Gallup, 2002).
Women also pay more attention to and notice more details of sexually-toned behavior that they
perceive as threatening. This follows from research on emotion and cognition that has found that
people react more emotionally to negative information (Taylor, 1991) and are more likely to
process negative information in an effortful, systematic, and detailed manner (Clore, Schwarz, &
Conway, 1994). It is also consistent with an evolutionary interpretation that people’s propensity
to react more strongly to negative than positive information is an evolved adaptation. Over
evolutionary history, it has been more difficult for people to reverse the consequences of severe
assault than a missed opportunity (Cacioppo & Berntson, 1999). Figure 1 presents a general
7
heuristic of how biological, personal, and cultural factors may influence the perception and
labeling of sexually-toned behaviors.
Insert Figure 1 about here
Study 1: Age, Sex, and Perceptions of Sexual Harassment
One of the most critical features of a woman’s reproductive biology is age. Age is a
biologically important individual difference, and it may influence female perceptions of sexuallytoned behaviors. Younger women are in their prime reproductive years and are more likely to be
seeking mates. Women past the age of forty are less likely to bear children, and post-menopausal
women are unable to reproduce. Males, on the other hand, can sire children into old age.
Therefore, younger women may be more receptive than older women to sexual attention from
desirable males. They may perceive mild and moderately sexually-toned behaviors as less
harassing than older women perceive them. However, because severe sexually-toned behaviors
imply a limitation of female choice, we expect that age would have no effect on the perception of
severe behaviors.
Curiously, although age is a standard demographic variable, we were unable to locate
studies on sexual harassment in which age was a central variable—either theoretically or
empirically. However, several studies suggest a relationship between age and sexual harassment
perceptions. For example female students are less likely than (presumably older) female
employees to label sexually-toned behaviors as sexual harassment and perceive sexually-toned
behaviors as offensive (Bremer, Moore, & Bildersee, 1991; Brooks & Perot, 1991; Fitzgerald,
Shullman, Bailey, Richards, Swecker, Gold, Ormerod & Weitzman, 1988). On the other hand,
8
because age is less related to a male’s reproductive value, we expect that it is less likely to
influence males’ perceptions of sexual-toned behaviors.
Method
Subjects. Three hundred and fifty two (352) subjects participated in Study 1; 71 (20%)
were undergraduate students and 281 were staff members from a Midwestern university. The
undergraduates received extra credit points toward partial fulfillment of a class requirement. The
staff received materials in campus mail, along with a cover letter asking for their assistance. The
subjects ranged in age from 17 through 65 (mean = 37), and 68% were female.
Materials. The stimulus materials consisted of three vignettes. They described an
interaction between a male and female co-worker. The three vignettes contained the same
categories of sexually-toned behavior but differed in severity. We used behaviors that were
relatively ambiguous and would be considered hostile-environment behaviors; none were quid
pro quo. The vignettes were based on 15 sexually-toned behaviors (see Table 1) grouped into
five categories (physical contact, request for dates, comments on appearance, looking, and facial
gestures) and three levels of severity (low, moderate, and high). We pilot tested the behaviors to
Insert Table 1 about here
determine if the levels of severity of the behaviors were perceived at the levels in which we had
assigned them a priori. Subjects (n = 49) in the pilot test ranged in age from 16 through 45
(mean = 21.83). The mean severity ratings (on a scale of 1 to 7, where 1 = low and 7 = high) for
behaviors in low, moderate, and high severity categories were 3.2, 5.2, and 6.8, respectively, and
9
all were significantly different from one another (all at p < .01). The vignettes are presented in
full in Appendix 1.
The stimulus materials were organized into packets. On the first page of each packet
were instructions, which highlighted sex of the initiator and recipient and indicated that they
were co-workers. Three vignettes followed the instructions. Each packet contained vignettes of
mild, moderate, and high severity (see Appendix 1). We counterbalanced order of severity.
Below each vignette were brief instructions and six questions. The questions related to the
following perceptions of the vignettes: appropriateness, offensiveness, friendliness, severity,
how complimentary the behavior appeared, and the degree to which the behavior could be
considered sexually harassing. Subjects rated their perceptions on Likert scales, ranging from 1
(low) to 7 (high). The last page of the survey included demographic questions.
Design. We used a 4 (observer age) x 2 (observer sex) x 3 (severity level) repeated
measures, factorial design. The four categories for subject age were 18-25, 26-35, 36-45, and
over 45. Severity of sexually-toned behavior was a within-subjects factor.
Procedure. Participants were asked to read the first scenario and then rate the behavior of
the male co-worker on the six questions described above. After making ratings on the first
scenario, participants continued on to the next scenario. Students read the vignettes and
completed the questionnaires in a classroom or laboratory. For the employees, we sent packets
and return envelopes through the campus mailing system (36% response rate).
10
Results and Discussion
Because of the relatively high intercorrelations among the six items of our dependent
measures, we combined them into one overall rating, which we called the “overall harassment
rating.” The median correlations among the six dependent measures in the low, moderate, and
high severity conditions were .71, .66, and .29, respectively. The corresponding reliability
estimates (alphas) were .94, .92, and .69. These correlations suggest that subjects made finer
discriminations about sexually-toned behaviors when they were severe.
Main effects occurred for age, F (3, 351) = 19.35, p < .001, sex, F (1, 348) = 5.38, p < .02
and severity, F (2, 351) = 699.55, p < .001. The effect size for age was moderate (eta2 = .15),
small for sex (eta2 = .02), and substantial for severity (eta2 = .77). Age interacted with severity,
F (6, 348) = 6.07, p < .03, but there was no interaction between sex and age.
Insert Figures 2 and 3 about here
The means of the harassment ratings by severity of sexually-toned behaviors and observer sex
and age are presented in Table 2. An inspection of the means supports
Insert Table 2 about here
our expectations that younger women perceive mild and moderate sexually-toned behavior as
less harassing than older women, and that women of all ages will perceive severe behaviors as
harassing. Harassment ratings increased regularly with age for women in the low and moderate
11
severity conditions. In the high severity condition, the only significant difference in female
perceptions was between the youngest and oldest groups, and this difference was slight (6.44 vs.
6.73). Although there was not a significant interaction between age and sex, the pattern of means
does lend support to our expectation that male perceptions will be less affected by age. In the
low and moderate conditions, the only significant difference was between the youngest and
oldest males. There were no differences among males by age in the high-severity condition.
Male and female perceptions of harassment differed primarily in the severe condition. With the
exception of the 31-40 age group, women rated the severe behaviors as more harassing than the
men did, although the magnitude of the differences was small. In the low and moderate
conditions male and female harassment perceptions did not differ, except among the participants
in the 31-40 age group in the moderate condition.
Study 2: Power, Status, and Perceptions of Sexual Harassment.
Power and status are often associated with one another. Powerful people often possess
high status. Perhaps because of this common association, and because studies have found that a
male initiator’s power and status affect women’s perceptions of sexually-toned behavior, power
and status tend to be treated synonymously in the sexual harassment literature (e.g., Gutek,
Morasch, & Cohen, 1983; Tata, 1993). However, a blanket association between male power and
status on the one hand and female perceptions of sexual harassment on the other hand is not yet
warranted. Power and status are analytically distinct concepts. One of the more widely used
conceptions of power is that of Emerson’s (1962). Emerson views power as arising from
dependency relations. Power arises from a situation in which one individual is dependent on
another for valued resources. Employees, for example, are typically dependent upon their
supervisors for good performance evaluations, favorable assignments, and other rewards. Status,
12
on the other hand, refers to rank, typically associated with privilege and reward (Henrich & GilWhite, 2001). However, a person with high status may or may not have power over another. A
closer look at the empirical evidence suggests that the association between male power and status
and female perceptions of sexual harassment is equivocal. Some studies have found no
association between initiator power and perceptions of sexual harassment (Hurt, et al., 1999;
Jones, et al., 1987). In fact, one study (Littler-Bishop, et al., 1982) found that sexually-toned
behaviors were perceived most negatively when initiated by low-status males.
There are good theoretical reasons to believe that initiator power will have a different
effect than status on female perceptions of harassment. An evolutionary psychological
perspective suggests that women tend to regard high-status in males as desirable because of the
association between status and resource acquisition (Low, 2000). Thus, females may perceive
sexually-toned behaviors directed at them by high-status males more positively than sexuallytoned behaviors directed at them by low-status males.2 On the other hand, we expect that power
should have the opposite effect. Because female choice is integral to evolved female sexuality,
females will regard coercion, or even the suggestion of it, as undesirable. When a male has
power over a woman and directs even mild sexually-toned behaviors toward her this creates an
ambiguous situation that could be perceived as coercive. A possibility exists that the male may
withhold resources unless the female responds encouragingly. On the other hand, if a male has
no power over a woman, the woman can rebuff the male with little fear of potentially adverse
consequences. Therefore, sexually-toned behaviors initiated by a male who has power over a
female are likely to be perceived more negatively than behaviors initiated by a male who does not
have power over her. Study 2 was designed to tease apart the status and power of the initiator to
examine how each affects perceptions of hostile-environment harassment.
13
Method
Subjects. Five hundred and forty two (542) subjects participated in Study 2; 229 (42%)
were undergraduates and 313 were university staff members. The undergraduates received extra
credit points toward partial fulfillment of a class requirement. The staff received materials in the
campus mail, along with a cover letter asking for their assistance. The subjects ranged in age
from 17 through 70 (mean = 33), and 372 were female (69%).
Materials. To tease apart status and power, we created vignettes that varied levels of the
male’s power and status separately. For example, in one vignette a high status male was
presented who did not have any power over the woman; in another a low status male was
presented who was the direct supervisor of the woman. The vignettes were similar to those used
in Study 1, except that we modified them to manipulate initiator status and power over the target
(see Appendix 2). The high-status initiator was a male partner in a prestigious New York City
law firm, the medium-status initiator was a male manager of a gardening department in a large
discount store, and the low-status initiator was a manager of a convenience store. In the law firm
vignettes, we described the target as a newly hired, junior lawyer; in the discount and
convenience store vignettes, we described the target as a sales clerk. Power over the target was
manipulated by describing the initiator as: (1) the target’s direct supervisor (direct power), (2) a
partner or manager in another department in the same firm or store and, therefore, not the target’s
supervisor (indirect power), and (3) a partner or manager in a different firm or store (no power).
For the direct and indirect power vignettes, the context for the interaction was a work setting.
For the no-power vignette, the context for the lawyers was a meeting of a board of directors of an
art museum on which the initiator and recipient served; for the discount and convenience store
employees, the context was a bowling league. A manipulation check confirmed that the status
14
and power manipulations were perceived as expected. The stimulus materials were
counterbalanced and organized in the same manner as those in Study 1; the six dependent
measures remained the same.
Design. We used a 3 (status) x 3 (power) x 3 (severity) repeated measures, factorial
design. Status (low, medium, and high) and severity of sexually toned behavior (low, moderate,
and high) were between-subject variables. Power over the target (direct, indirect, and no power)
was a within-subjects variable.
Procedure. We used the same procedure as in Study 1. The response rate from
employees was 32%. Participants were asked to read one scenario carefully and then to make
ratings on the same six questions as in Study 1 before moving on to the next scenario.
Results and Discussion
As in Study 1, we combined the six items into an overall harassment rating. Since our
interest was with female perceptions, we included only female subjects in the analyses. There
were significant main effects for power, F (2, 370) = 204.18, p < .01, and severity, F (2, 370) =
117.58, p < .01; both had large effects (the eta2s were .53 and .40, respectively). The main effect
for status was not significant. Although we expected that high status would be associated with
Insert Figure 4 About Here
lower harassment ratings and visa-versa, the fact that status had no effect confirms our
expectation that high status would not be associated with higher harassment ratings. However,
status interacted with power, F (6, 370) = 4.20 p < .05, and power interacted with severity, F (4,
370) = 8.64, p < .01. An inspection of the means in Table 3 provides further detail regarding
15
Insert Figure 5 About Here
Insert Table 3 about here
the nature of the interactions. As power increased and as status decreased, harassment ratings
increased. This suggests that status mitigated the effect of power on harassment perceptions.
Within each category of sexually-toned behavior, the highest harassment ratings occurred with
the low status, high power initiator. Power had a somewhat greater (albeit not a significantly
different) effect on harassment ratings in the low severity condition than in the high severity
condition. This is consistent with our expectation that initiator power is more likely to influence
perceptions of sexually-toned behaviors when behaviors are more mild and hence ambiguous. It
should also be noted that in 25 of the 27 cells in Table 3, women’s harassment ratings reflected
significant differences based on initiator power. In other words, women made consistent and
fine-grained distinctions among levels of power held by the male initiator.
General Discussion
We argued that evolutionary psychology provides a useful framework for theory and
research on perceptions of sexual harassment. In particular, observer age and initiator power and
status were expected to influence sexual harassment perceptions in the directions predicted by an
evolutionary perspective. Age was expected to affect perceptions because of its relation to
fertility. Younger women are in their prime reproductive years, and, therefore, they were
expected to be more receptive than older women to sexual attention from desirable males. Status
16
and power were expected to have opposite effects on sexual harassment perceptions. Women
were expected to regard high status in males as desirable because of the association between
status and resource acquisition, and therefore perceive sexually-toned behaviors directed at them
by higher status males more positively than sexually-toned behaviors directed at them by lower
status males. Power, on the other hand, was expected to have the opposite effect because female
choice is fundamental to female sexuality. Females were expected to regard explicit or implicit
sexual coercion as extremely undesirable. Therefore, sexually-toned behaviors initiated by a
male who has power over a female were expected to be perceived more negatively than behaviors
by a male who does not have power over a female.
Our results were consistent with an evolutionary psychological perspective of sexual
harassment. In Study 1, older women perceived mild and moderate sexually-toned behaviors as
more harassing than younger women. However, also consistent with an evolutionary
psychological perspective, female age had little influence on harassment perceptions of severe
behaviors—women of all ages regarded severe behaviors as highly harassing. In Study 2, status
and power had differential effects on women’s perceptions of sexually-toned behaviors. Status
did not have a main effect on harassment perceptions, while a large main effect occurred for
initiator power. However, power and status interacted, so that harassment ratings increased as
power increased and status decreased. Females made consistent and fine-grained distinctions in
harassment ratings according to the male initiator’s power—with higher ratings being associated
with higher initiator power. Although not of primary interest in this study, in a separate analysis,
we examined male observers’ harassment ratings with respect to initiator status and power. The
results were generally similar, with the following exception. Unlike females, male harassment
ratings did not significantly differ in the direct and indirect power in the high and medium status
17
conditions. In line with an evolutionary perspective, females were more sensitive than males to
the male initiator’s power over the recipient.
By and large, males and females were similar in their perceptions of which sexually-toned
behaviors were harassing. This supports Gutek’s (1985) argument that the effects of sex on
perceptions of sexually-toned behaviors has been overstated. Men and women did not differ in
their harassment ratings in the low and moderate severity conditions; women gave slightly higher
ratings than men in the severe condition. That people also seemed to process information in a
more vigilant and systematic fashion in the high severity condition than the low and moderate
conditions suggests that strongly toned behaviors were viewed as threatening or inappropriate.
People perceive the more severe hostile-environment behaviors (e.g., inappropriate touching,
leering) as harassing, and, thus, sexually-toned behaviors need not be as extreme as quid pro quo
to be reliably regarded as harassing.
Limitations
One limitation of this study involves the inextricable relationship between age and
experience. Older participants were also working adults while most of the younger participants
were students. Although, it is common for students to hold part-time jobs, it is possible that
different amounts of work experience, rather than participants’ age, may have influenced their
reactions to the harassment scenarios. If this were the case, sexual harassment may well have
different meanings to the older participants due to factors other than age. However, that
harassment ratings did not differ as strongly by age for male participants suggests that factors
other than experience may be responsible for difference in ratings among women of different age
groups. Moreover, that these differences are considerably smaller in the more severe conditions
indicates that older and younger participants agreed on the meaning of harassment and therefore
18
work experience may not lead to completely different definitions of harassment by age group.
Nonetheless the effect of work experience probably does influence the ratings to some extent and
should be considered when interpreting the results found here. Future research that controls for
work experiences when examining age differences would be useful.
A second limitation is that because the return rate among the working adult sample was
less than 100%, the people who responded may have different views – perhaps stronger views –
about sexual harassment than those who did not respond. Again, one should look to the sample
of males. There were minor differences among males in different age groups. Males in the 18-22
groups did not significantly differ from males in the 23-30 or 31-40 groups on any of the ratings
across any of the severity conditions. This suggests that, a response bias among the working
adults was unlikely to have had a strong influence on the results. However, as is almost always
the case with field research where it difficult to get 100% participation, the possibility of a
response bias should nonetheless be considered when interpreting the data.
Implications
The results of these studies are relevant for both structural interventions and training
programs. One difficulty in dealing with accusations of sexual harassment is that people often
perceive the same sexually-toned behavior differently. Yet little research has focused on what
individual differences systematically affect harassment perceptions. This study shows that a
person’s age appears to affect harassment perceptions, particularly a woman’s age. Therefore,
investigations of sexual harassment should take into account the effects of age and involve
decision-makers from different age groups. Just as age-related demographic analyses are useful
in predicting crime rates (crime goes up as the percentage of young males in a population
increases), demographic analyses of organizations may be helpful in predicting (and
19
understanding) sexual harassment accusations. For example, organizations in which age is
bimodally distributed are more likely to experience problems.
On the other hand, sex by itself had a weak effect on perceptions. By and large, males
and females gave similar harassment ratings to sexually-toned behaviors. Neither males nor
females regarded mild-flirtation as particularly harassing. However, there was a consensus that
severely-toned behaviors were harassing. The agreement between males and females on the
meaning of more severe behaviors suggests that organizations can proceed more confidently in
clearly defining and sanctioning hostile-environment behaviors.
Given the strong effects of initiator power, training programs for supervisors and
managers need to emphasize that, even though their intent may be benign, sexually-toned
behaviors initiated by males with power over females are likely to be perceived as harassing.
Moreover, based on the results of this study, males seem to be less aware than females of the
effects of power on female perceptions of harassment. This lends support to Bargh and
Raymond’s (1995) suggestion that males may unconsciously and automatically associate power
over females with sex. That males may be unaware of this association is all the more reason to
emphasize sexual harassment training for individuals in supervisory positions.
The workplace is increasingly a primary location where reproductive-age people meet and
form mating partnerships. Therefore, by knowing more about how and under what
circumstances people are likely to perceive sexually-toned behaviors as inappropriate,
organizations can better control sexual harassment without placing unrealistic constraints on
sexuality. Evolutionary psychology and sexual selection theory provide powerful heuristics for
understanding sexuality in the workplace and for devising programs to deal effectively with the
problem of sexual harassment.
20
References
Abbey, A. (1982). Sex differences in attributions for friendly behavior: Do males
misperceive females’ friendliness? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 830-838.
Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D. E., & Cutler, B. D. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment:
A re-examination of gender differences. Journal of Psychology, 124, 409-416.
Bargh, J. A., & Raymond, P. (1995). The naive misuse of power: Nonconscious sources
of sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 86-95.
Bremer, B. A., Moore, C. T., & Bildersee, E. F. (1991). Do you have to call it “sexual
harassment” to feel harassed? College Student Journal, 25, 258-268.
Brooks, L., & Perot, A. R. (1991). Reporting sexual harassment: Exploring a predictive
model. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 31-47.
Browne, K. R. (1997). An evolutionary perspective on sexual harassment: Seeking roots
in biology rather than ideology. Journal of Contemporary Legal Issues, 8, 5-78.
Browne, K. R. (2002). Biology at work: Rethinking sexual equality. New Brunswick:
Rutgers University Press.
Buss, D. (1994). The evolution of desire. New York: Basic Books.
Cacioppo, J. T., & Berntson, G. T. (1999). The affect system: Architecture and operating
characteristics. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 8, 133-136.
Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Cognitive causes and consequences of
emotion. In R. S. Wyer and T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 323417). Hillsdale, NJ: Earlbaum.
Cronin, H. (1991). The ant and the peacock. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University
Press.
21
Ellis, S., Barak, A., & Pinto, A. (1991). Moderating effects of personal cognitions on
experienced and perceived sexual harassment of women at the workplace. Journal of Applied
Social Psychology, 21, 1320-1337.
Emerson, R. M. (1962). Power-dependence relations. American Sociological Review,
27, 31-40.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1980). Guidelines on discrimination
because of sex. Federal Register, 45, 74676-74677.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and
agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 5-27.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Shullman, S. L. Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker, J., Gold, Y.,
Ormerod, N., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in
academic and the workplace. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 32, 152-175.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco, CA: Jossey Bass.
Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. (1983). Interpreting social-sexual behavior in
the work setting. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30-48.
Henrich, J., & Gil-White, F. J. (2001). The evolution of prestige: Freely conferred
deference as a mechanism for enhancing the benefits of cultural transmission. Evolution and
Human Behavior, 22, 165-196.
Hrdy, S.B. (1999, rev. ed.) The woman that never evolved, Cambridge, MA. Harvard
University Press.
Hurt, J., Maver, J. A., & Hoffman, D. (1999). Situational and individual influences on
judgments of hostile-environment sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 29,
1395-1415.
22
Jones, T. S., Remland, M. S., & Brunner, C. C. (1987). Effects of employment
relationship, response of recipient and sex of rater on perceptions of sexual harassment.
Perceptual and Motor Skills, 65, 55-63.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L. (1995). Sexual harassment research: A methodological critique.
Personnel Psychology, 48, 841-864.
Littler-Bishop, S., Seidler-Feller, D., & Opaluch, R. E. (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.
Low, B.S. (2000) Why sex matters. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Petralia, S. M., & Gallup, Jr., G. G. (2002). Effects of a sexual assault scenario on
handgrip strength across the menstrual cycle. Evolution and Human Behavior, 23, 3-10.
Small, M. F. (1992). The evolution of female sexuality and mate selection in humans.
Human Nature, 3, 133-156.
Studd, M. V., & Gattiker, U. E. (1991). The evolutionary psychology of sexual
harassment in organizations. Ethology and Sociobiology, 12, 249-290.
Tata, J. (1993). The structure and phenomenon of sexual harassment: Impact of category
of sexually harassing behavior, gender, and hierarchical level. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 23, 199-211.
Taylor, S. E. (1991). Asymmetrical effects of positive and negative events: The
mobilization-minimization hypothesis. Psychological Bulletin, 110, 67-85.
Trivers, R. L. (1972). Parental investment and sexual selection. In B. Campbell (Ed.),
Sexual selection and the descent of man 1871-1971 (pp. 136-179). Chicago: Aldine.
23
Author Note
Stephen M. Colarelli, Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University, Mt.
Pleasant, MI 48859 USA, colar1sm@cmich.edu; Stephanie Haaland is now at Denison
Consulting, Ann Arbor, MI, USA, shaaland@denisonculture.com.
We would like to thank Kingsley Browne for his comments on an earlier version of this
article, Maxine Tubbs for her help with the data collection, and Felix Famoye and Charlie Yang
for their help with the data analysis. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed
to Stephen M. Colarelli, Department of Psychology, Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant,
MI 48859. Electronic mail can be sent to colar1sm@cmich.edu.
24
Footnotes
1. For example, different legal standards have emerged over the years--a "reasonable woman," "a
reasonable person," and a "reasonable victim" (Bennet-Alexander & Pincus, 1995). Different
courts, however, have held differently, and some do not make clear what standard they are
applying (K. R. Browne, personal communication, September 8, 1999).
2. This is most likely why Littler-Bishop, et al. (1982) found that status was negatively related to
harassment perceptions. In their study, status referred to occupational and socio-economic status,
rather than formal authority.
Table 1
Sexually-toned Behaviors Used In Scenarios
Tone of Sexual Behavior
Behavior
Physical contact
Low
Shoulder squeeze
Moderate
Severe
Arm around
Touch
shoulder
Request for dates
Ask to lunch
Ask to dinner
buttocks
Repeated
requests for
dates
Comments about
appearance
Looking
“You look nice
today”
Eye-contact
“Brings out your
eyes”
Double take
“Accentuates
your body”
Look up and
down
25
Facial gestures
Smile
Wink
Licks lips
26
Table 2
Study 1 Cell Means: Overall Harassment Ratings by Severity of Sexually-toned Behaviors over
Participant Age and Sex
Severity of Sexually-toned Behaviors
Low
Moderate
High
Age
18-22
Male
Female
Male
Female
Male
Female
M
2.451
2.662,3
3.815
3.746,7,8
6.1110
6.4410,12
SD
1.00
1.07
1.21
1.16
1.02
.591
M
3.39
3.054
4.77
4.846
6.3311
6.7611
SD
1.07
1.28
1.25
1.67
.92
.435
M
2.77
3.693
4.459
5.187,9
6.39
6.55
SD
1.23
1.54
.96
1.38
.74
.780
M
3.731
3.982,4
4.975
5.418
6.4813
6.7312,13
SD
1.63
1.59
1.47
1.25
.72
.49
23-30
31-40
41+
Note. Means with the same subscripts are significantly different from one another. For ease of
presentation, subscripts reflect differences across sex and observer age categories within severity
condition.
28
Table 3
Study 2 Cell Means: Female Observers’ Overall Harassment Rating by Male Status and Power and Sexual Tone of Behavior
Male Initiator’s Status
High
Medium
Low
Severity of Sexually-toned Behavior
Power
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
Low
Moderate
High
M
3.841, a
4.761, b
6.521, c, d
4.052, e
5.032, f
6.612, g
4.403, i
5.343,22
6.763,23
SD
1.447
1.515
.684
1.437
1.505
.599
1.719
1.276
.485
M
3.344, a
4.264, b
6.234, d
3.465, e
4.215, f
6.385,g
3.966, h
4.337,22
6.376,7,23
SD
1.383
1.677
.912
1.362
1.761
.859
1.631
1.566
.814
M
3.008, a
3.838, b
6.148, c
3.009, e
3.6210, f
6.079, 10, g
3.0711, h, i
3.6312,22
6.1311,12,23
SD
1.370
1.816
1.006
1.335
1.876
1.089
1.364
1.713
.993
Direct
Indirect
No Power
Note. Means on a given variable with the same subscripts are significantly different from one another. For ease of presentation, subscripts 1 through 12 reflect
differences within status and across severity conditions; subscripts a through i reflect differences within status and severity across power conditions.
29
Figure Caption
Figure 1. A Model of Perception and Labeling of Sexually-toned Behaviors.
Figure 2. Effects of Age, Sex, and Severity.
Figure 3. Interaction of Age x Severity.
Figure 4. Effects of Power, Status, and Severity.
Figure 5. Interactions of Status x Power and Status x Severity
30
Behavior
Interpretation
as sexual or
non-sexual
Universal and
cultural
sexual signals
If sexual, is
behavior
welcome or
unwelcome?
Reactions to,
judgements
about, and
labeling of
behavior
Context:
actor attributes,
target attributes, and
nature of behaviors
and setting
31
Overall Harassment Rating
7
6
5
4
Female
Male
3
2
1
0
17-22
years
23-30
years
Age
31-40
years
41+ years
Low
Medium
High
Severity
32
7
6
5
4
3
Age
17-22
2
23-30
31-40
1
41+
0
Low
Medium
Severity
High
33
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
Low
Medium High
Status
None Indirect Direct
Power
Low Moderate High
Severity
34
6
5.5
5
4.5
Status
4
Low
3.5
Medium
High
3
None
Indirect
Direct
Power
7
6.5
6
5.5
5
Power
4.5
Direct
Indirect
None
4
3.5
3
Low
Moderate
Severity
High
35
Appendix 1:
Severity Scenarios
Low
Severity
As Jennifer walks by, Gary glances up, makes eye contact and says, “You look nice
today.” He then squeezes her shoulder says, “You’re doing a good job,” and smiles.
As Gary turns to put on his coat he asks, “would you like to go to lunch?”
Moderate
Severity
As Jennifer walks by, Gary does a double take and says “That blouse really brings
out the color of your eyes.” He then puts his arm around her shoulders, says,
“You’re doing a good job,” and winks. As Gary turns to grab his coat he asks,
“would you like to go to dinner?”
High
Severity
As Jennifer walks by, Gary slowly looks her up and down and says “That outfit
really accentuates your body.” He then pats her buttocks says, “You’re doing a good
job,” and slowly licks his lips. As he turns to grab his coat he says “are you sure I
can’t talk you into going to dinner?”
Note: The introduction to each scenario in Study 1 was: Please read the following interaction
between Jennifer, a 29 year old , and Gary, a 34 year old, who have been co-workers in the same
department of company XYZ for the past year.
36
Appendix 2
Status and Power Scenarios
Power
Status
Low l
High
Jennifer, a 29-year old female, is a clerk who works the day shift at a
Stop & Go convenience store. Gary, a 34-year old male, is the day
manager of the Stop & Go store. Gary is Jennifer's direct supervisor.
(Insert one of three Severity Scenarios from Study One)
Medium
Catherine, a 29-year old female, is a clerk who works the weekday shift
in a Stop & Go convenience store. Michael, a 34-year old male, is the
weekend manager at the same Stop & Go store. Because Michael works
a different shift, he is NOT Catherine's direct supervisor. (Insert one of
three Severity Scenarios from Study One)
Low
Barbara, a 29-year old female, is a clerk who works the day shift in a
Stop & Go convenience store. Thomas, a 34-year old male, is a manager
at a Stop & Go store in another city. Barbara and Thomas are members
of the same bowling league. After a league competition one
night…(Insert one of three Severity Scenarios from Study One)
Medium
High
Jennifer, a 29-year old female, is a clerk in the sporting goods department
of a large Shop-4-Less discount store. Gary, a 34-year old male, is the
manager of the sporting goods department in the same Shop-4-Less
discount store. Gary is Jennifer's direct supervisor. (Insert one of three
Severity Scenarios from Study One)
Medium
Catherine, a 29-year old female, is a clerk in the sporting goods
department of a large Shop-4-Less discount store. Michael, a 34-year old
male, is the manager of the gardening department in the same
Shop-4-Less discount store. Because Michael works in a different
department he is NOT Catherine's direct supervisor. (Insert one of three
Severity Scenarios from Study One)
37
Low
Barbara, a 29-year old female, is a clerk in the sporting goods department
of a large Shop-4-Less discount store. Thomas, a 34-year old male, is a
department manager at Save Mart, a different large discount store in
another city. Barbara and Thomas are members of the same bowling
league. (Insert one of three Severity Scenarios from Study One)
High
High
Jennifer, a 29-year old female, is a junior lawyer in the corporate defense
division of a prestigious New York City law firm. Gary, a 34-year old
male, is a lawyer and partner (owns a share of the firm) in the same law
firm. Gary is the manager of the corporate defense division, and is
Jennifer's direct supervisor. (Insert one of three Severity Scenarios from
Study One)
Medium
Catherine, a 29-year old female, is a junior lawyer in the corporate
defense division of a prestigious New York City law firm. Michael, a
34-year old male, is a lawyer and partner (owns a share of the firm) in the
same law firm. Michael is the manager of the criminal defense division.
Because he is in a different department than Catherine, he is NOT her
direct supervisor.
Low
Barbara, a 29-year old female, is a junior lawyer in a prestigious New
York City law firm. Thomas, a 34-year old male, is a lawyer and partner
(owns a share of the firm) in a different law firm, in Manhattan. Both
Thomas and Barbara are on the board of trustees of the New York
Museum of Modern Art. Their affiliation with the museum is voluntary,
based on their interest in art. After a museum board meeting one
evening…(Insert one of three Severity Scenarios from Study One)