Abstract
Survey data from a student population of experienced workers was used to examine perceptions of organizational responses to sexual harassment. Results revealed significant differences in the perceived seriousness of gender harassment, unwanted sexual attention, and sexual coercion. Moreover, women viewed all three types of harassment as being significantly more serious than men. Terminating perpetrators’ employment, providing a verbal/written reprimand, and mandating an apology were rated as being the most common organizational responses to sexual harassment. A significant positive relationship existed between perceived organizational response severity and effectiveness in combating harassment. Results partially supported the notion that more severe responses are associated with greater effectiveness in communicating organizational intolerance of harassment. Contrary to hypotheses, ratings of organizational response effectiveness and appropriateness were not dependent upon harassment type. Further, organizational responses that involved transferring or reassigning victims were not viewed as less severe punishment for perpetrators than were most responses that involved the perpetrator directly.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Adams-Roy, J., & Barling, J. (1998). Predicting the decision to confront or report sexual harassment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 329–336.
Berdahl, J. L., Magley, V. J., & Waldo, C. R. (1996). The sexual harassment of men? Exploring the concept with theory and data. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 20, 527–547.
Blumenthal, J. A. (1998). The reasonable woman standard: A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Law and Human Behavior, 22, 33–58.
Brown, T. D. (1993). When counseling is not enough: The ninth circuit requires employers to discipline sexual harassers. Washington University Law Quarterly, 71, 901–919.
Cummings, K. M., & Armenta, M. (2002). Penalties for peer sexual harassment in an academic context: The influence of harasser gender, participant gender, severity of harassment, and the presence of bystanders. Sex Roles, 47, 273–280.
DeSouza, E. R., Pryor, J., & Hutz, C. S. (1998). Reactions to sexual harassment charges between North Americans and Brazilians. Sex Roles, 39, 913–928.
DeSouza, E. R., & Solberg, J. (2004). Women’s and men’s reactions to man-to-man sexual harassment: Does the sexual orientation of the victim matter? Sex Roles, 50, 623–639.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1980). Guidelines on discrimination because of sex. Federal Register, 45, 74676–74677.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1990). Policy guidance on current issues of sexual harassment. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/currentissues.html.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). (1999). Enforcement guidance: Vicarious employer liability for unlawful harassment by supervisors. Retrieved January 18, 2007, from http://www.eeoc.gov/policy/docs/harassment.html.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., Hulin, C. L., Gelfand, M. J., & Magley, V. J. (1997). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment in organizations: A test of an integrated model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 82, 578–589.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F. (1995). Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 425–445.
Fitzgerald, L., F., & Ormerod, A. J. (1991). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The influence of gender and academic context. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 281–294.
Folger, R., & Greenberg, J. (1985). Procedural justice: An interpretive analysis of personnel systems. In K. M. Rowland & G. R. Ferris (Eds.), Research in personnel and human resource management (vol. 3, pp. 141–183). Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Franklin, E. D. (1999). Maneuvering through the labyrinth: The employer’s paradox in responding to hostile environment sexual harassment—a proposed way out. Fordham Law Review, 67, 1517–1608.
Gilliland, S. W., & Steiner, D. D. (2001). Causes and consequences of applicant perceptions of unfairness. In R. Cropanzano (Ed.), Justice in the workplace: From theory to practice (vol. 2, pp. 175–195). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Glomb, T. M., Richman, W. L., Hulin, C. L., & Drasgow, R. (1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309–328.
Kenig, S., & Ryan, J. (1986). Sex differences in levels of tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a university campus. Sex Roles, 15, 535–549.
Lee, L. D., & Greenlaw, P. S. (2000). Employer liability for employee sexual harassment: A judicial policy-making study. Public Administration Review, 60, 123–133.
Lind, E. A., & Tyler, T. R. (1988). The social psychology of procedural justice. New York: Plenum.
Magley, V. J., Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & DeNardo, M. (1999). Outcomes of self-labeling sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84, 390–402.
O’Connor, M. A. (1998). Gender and the definition of sexual harassment: A meta-analysis of the empirical literature. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Psychology, University of Arizona.
O’Connor, M., Gutek, B. A., Stockdale, M., Geer, T., M., Melancon, R. (2004). Explaining sexual harassment judgments: Looking beyond gender of the rater. Law & Human Behavior, 28, 69–95.
Padgitt, S. C., & Padgitt, J. S. (1986). Cognitive structure of sexual harassment: Implications for university policy. Journal of College Student Personnel, 27, 34–39.
Pryor, J. B., DeSouza, E. R., Fitness, J., Hutz, C., Kumpf, M., Lubbert, K., et al. (1997). Gender differences in the interpretation of social-sexual behavior: A cross-cultural perspective on sexual harassment. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 28, 509–534.
Pryor, J. B., Giedd, J. L., & Williams, K. B. (1995). A social psychological model for predicting sexual harassment. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 69–84.
Rotundo, M., Nguyen, D., & Sackett, P. R. (2001). A meta-analytic review of gender differences in perceptions of sexual harassment. Journal of Applied Psychology, 86, 914–922.
Rudman, L. A., Borgida, E., & Robertson, B. A. (1995). Suffering in silence: Procedural justice versus gender socialization issues in university sexual harassment grievance procedures. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 17, 519–541.
Rusbasan, D., Gallivan, C. M., & Magley, V. J. (2003, April). Transfer as an effective organizational tactic to impede sexual harassment. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society for Industrial and Organizational Psychology, Orlando, FL.
Salisbury, J., & Jaffe, F. (1990). Individual training of sexual harassers. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Sexual harassment on campuses: Abusing the ivory power (pp. 141–152). Albany, NY: State University of New York Press.
Sigal, J., Gibbs, M. S., Goodrich, C., Rashid, T., Anjum, A., Hsu, D., et al. (2005). Cross-cultural reactions to academic sexual harassment: Effects of individualist vs. collectivist culture and gender of participants. Sex Roles, 52, 201–215.
Thibaut, J., & Walker, L. (1975). Procedural justice: A psychological analysis. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Tyler, T. R., & Caine, A. (1981). The influence of outcomes and procedures on satisfaction with formal leaders. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 642–655.
Wiener, R. L., Winter, R., Rogers, M., & Arnot, L. (2004). The effects of prior workplace behavior on subsequent sexual harassment judgments. Law and Human Behavior, 28, 47–67.
Willert, S. J. (1998). Sexual harassment: Defining employers’ rights. For the Defense, 40(11), 8–11.
Williams, J. H., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1999). The effects of organizational practices on sexual harassment and individual outcomes in the military. Military Psychology, 11, 303–328.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Nelson, C.G., Halpert, J.A. & Cellar, D.F. Organizational Responses for Preventing and Stopping Sexual Harassment: Effective Deterrents or Continued Endurance?. Sex Roles 56, 811–822 (2007). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9239-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-007-9239-8