Sexual Sexual HarassmentHarassment

John B. Pryor, Ph.D.John B. Pryor, Ph.D.Illinois State UniversityIllinois State University

Sexual Sexual Harassment in Harassment in Federal LawFederal Law

Robinson v. Robinson v. Jacksonville Jacksonville Shipyards (1991)Shipyards (1991)

Ellison v.Ellison v.Brady (1991)Brady (1991)

Barnes v. Barnes v. Costle (1977)Costle (1977)

HostileHostileEnvironmentEnvironment

QuidQuidProProQuoQuo

Title VIITitle VIIof 1964of 1964

CivilCivilRights Rights

ActActprohibitsprohibitsgender-gender-based based discri-discri-

minationmination

US Law EEOC Guidelines Example Cases

Sexual Sexual Harassment in Harassment in

the US the US MilitaryMilitary

1714

64

55

0

20

40

60

80

Per

cent

Har

asse

d

1988 1995

Survey

DoD Sexual Harassment Surveys: 95 vs 88

Men

Women

Decline in Sexual Harassment

Changes in Reporting to Authorities

Sexual Sexual Harassment in Harassment in

the Federalthe FederalGovernmentGovernment

15 14

19

42 4244

0

10

20

30

40

50Pe

rcen

t Har

asse

d in

the

Pre

viou

s 2

Yea

rs

1980 1987 1994

Year

Surveys of Federal Workers

Men

Women

37

29

24

13

10

7

7

4

14

9

8

4

4

2

2

2

0 10 20 30 40

Percent

Sexual remarks, jokes, teasing

Sexual looks, gestures

Deliberate touching, cornering

Pressure for dates

Suggestive letters, calls, materials

Stalking

Pressure for sexual favors

Actual/attempted rape, assault

Behaviors

MSPB Data

Women

Men

S

InterpretationsInterpretationsofof

Sexual Sexual HarassmentHarassment

Is it sexual harassment if a supervisor does it?

85.7

10.9

72.4

20.1

61

26.4

62.1

23.8

43.8

32.6

40.9

31.9

95

4

87

10.8

77.3

17.1

75.3

15.6

65.7

25

56.1

26.6

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

definitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobably

pressure forsexual favors

touch, lean,corner, pinch

letters, calls,sexual materials

pressure fordates

suggestivelooks, gestures

teasing, jokes,remarks

percent of Federal Workers

males

females

Is it sexual harassment if a co-worker does it?

77.1

15.6

64.2

24.4

50.1

30.9

47.6

27.9

36 34.1 33.230.8

92.7

5.4

83.7

12.4

70

21.5

65

19.6

60

27.7

48.7

27.8

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

definitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobably

pressure forsexual favors

touch, lean,corner, pinch

letters, calls,sexual materials

pressure fordates

suggestivelooks, gestures

teasing, jokes,remarks

percent of Federal workers

males

females

77

28

3

7

79

14

11

6

0 25 50 75 100

Percent

Coworker or other employee

Immediate and/or higher level supervisor

Subordinate

Other or unknown

Organizational Role

MSPB Survey: Who was harasser?

Women

Men

Typical Victims - similar to average Federal workers

• Profession/administrator/managerProfession/administrator/manager

• College educatedCollege educated

• over 35over 35

• GS-11 & aboveGS-11 & above

• Profession/administrator/manager/clerkProfession/administrator/manager/clerk

• College educatedCollege educated

• over 35over 35

• GS-5 through GS-12GS-5 through GS-12

MalesMales

FemalesFemales

44

35

28

15

12

10

7

0 10 20 30 40 50

Percent

Ignored it/did nothing

Asked or told harasser to stop

Avoided the harasser

Made joke of it

Reported to supervisor/official

Threatened to tell/told others

Went along

Reactions

How did victims react?

Only 6% of victims Only 6% of victims filed formal filed formal complaintscomplaints

Impact of Sexual Harassmentover 2 Year Period

• Job TurnoverJob Turnover $24.7 million$24.7 million

• Sick LeaveSick Leave $14.9 million$14.9 million

• Individual ProductivityIndividual Productivity $93.7 million$93.7 million

• Workgroup ProductivityWorkgroup Productivity $193.8 million$193.8 million

• TotalTotal $327.1 million$327.1 million

Sexual Sexual Harassment on Harassment on

College College CampusesCampuses

Sexual Coercion

UnwantedUnwantedSexualSexualAttentionAttention

GenderGenderHarassmentHarassment

Examples

..made crude sexual remarks about you

..persistent requestsfor dinner, drinksdespite rejection

..subtly bribed youto engage in sexual behavior

3 Types of Victim Experiences

The Sexual ExperiencesQuestionnaire

Sexual Coercion

UnwantedUnwantedSexualSexualAttentionAttention

GenderGenderHarassmentHarassment

Incidence in 2 samplesof university women

15% to 47%15% to 47%

3 Types of Victim Experiences

from Fitzgerald, et al. (1988)

1% to 20%1% to 20%

1% to 5%1% to 5%

Studies of sexual harassment in my laboratories at ISU

The experimental social psychological The experimental social psychological approach: actual behavior is studied approach: actual behavior is studied

under controlled conditions.under controlled conditions.

SexualExploitation

Sexual Attraction/Miscommunication

OutgroupHostility

Three Types ofSexual Harassment

A Social Psychological Perspective

1

2

3

SexualHarassment

PersonFactors

SituationFactors

The Person X Situation

Model

Some men may possess a proclivity for using social power to sexually exploit. Such proclivities are more likely to guide behaviors

when social norms allow or condon such behavior.

SEXUAL EXPLOITATIONSEXUAL EXPLOITATION

The Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale - An Example Scenario

Imagine that you are the news director for a local television station. Due to some personnel changes you have to replace the anchor woman for the evening news. Your policy has always been to promote reporters from within your organization when an anchor woman vacancy occurs. There are several female reporters from which to choose. All are young, attractive, and apparently qualified for the job. One reporter, Loretta W., is someone whom you personally find very sexy. You initially hired her, giving her a first break in the TV news business. How likely are you to do the following things in this situation?

Pryor (1987)

The LSH Scale measures a man’swillingness to use social power to

sexually exploit women.

The LSH Scale measures a man’swillingness to use social power to

sexually exploit women.

SexuallyHarassingRole Model

ProfessionalRole Model

High LSHMen

Low LSHMen

© John B. Pryor, 1997

Design from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)Design from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)

Dependent Variable = Unsolicited Sexual Touching

0.36

0.55

0.89

0.22

0.000

0.250

0.500

0.750

1.000

Per

cent

Tou

chin

g

Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model

Role Model Conditions

Results from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)

Low LSH

High LSH

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

Sex

ual

ity

of

Ph

ysic

al C

on

tact

Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model

Role Model Conditions

Results from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)

Low LSH

High LSH

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

Sex

ual

ity

of

Ph

ysic

al C

on

tact

Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model

Role Model Conditions

Results from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)

Low LSH

High LSH

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

Sex

ual

ity

of

Wo

rds

& A

ctio

ns

(Ap

art

fro

m t

ou

chin

g)

Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model

Role Model Conditions

Low LSH

High LSH

1.000

2.000

3.000

4.000

5.000

Sex

ual

ity

of

Wo

rds

& A

ctio

ns

(Ap

art

fro

m t

ou

chin

g)

Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model

Role Model Conditions

Low LSH

High LSH

Sexual Sexual TouchingTouching

Sexual Sexual Talk & Talk & Other Other NonverbalNonverbalBehaviorBehavior