The dimensions of sexual harassment: A structural analysis

Abstract Despite the growing attention devoted to the topic of sexual harassment in the vocational behavior literature, little formal theory has emerged, and, in fact, basic definitional issues remain unresolved. In the present study, 28 subjects completed 200 paired comparisons of situations describing sexual harassment in a university setting, and rated their degree of similarity on a 7-point bipolar scale. In addition, subjects rated the situations on the degree of severity, type of harassment (quid pro quo vs conditions of work) and form of coercion (psychological vs physical). The results of nonmetric multidimensional scaling analysis, supported by a complete link-cluster analysis and a vector-fitting procedure, suggest that the continuum of severity model is an oversimplification, and that at least two dimensions are required to adequately account for the data. The results of an individual differences scaling analysis are also reported and discussed in context of the differing roles played by the two sexes in interactions such as the ones examined in the present study.

[1]  R. Faley.  SEXUAL HARASSMENT: CRITICAL REVIEW OF LEGAL CASES WITH GENERAL PRINCIPLES AND PREVENTIVE MEASURES* , 1982 .

[2]  L. Fitzgerald,et al.  The incidence and dimensions of sexual harassment in academia and the workplace. , 1988 .

[3]  Steven C. Padgitt,et al.  Cognitive Structure of Sexual Harassment: Implications for University Policy. , 1986 .

[4]  R. Ross.  Optimum orders for the presentation of pairs in the method of paired comparisons. , 1934 .

[5]  B. Gutek,et al.  Dimensions of perceptions of social-sexual behavior in a work setting , 1985 .

[6]  Phyllis L. Crocker.  An Analysis of University Definitions of Sexual Harassment , 1983, Signs: Journal of Women in Culture and Society.

[7]  J. Pryor.  The lay person's understanding of sexual harassment , 1985 .

[8]  J. Chang,et al.  Analysis of individual differences in multidimensional scaling via an n-way generalization of “Eckart-Young” decomposition , 1970 .

[9]  N. Malamuth,et al.  Sex role stereotyping and reactions to depictions of stranger versus acquaintance rape. , 1983 .

[10]  D. Terpstra,et al.  A Framework for the Study of Sexual Harassment , 1986 .

[11]  Sexuality and the Workplace , 1980 .

[12]  David Klahr,et al.  A monte carlo investigation of the statistical significance of Kruskal's nonmetric scaling procedure , 1969 .

[13]  R Kalin,et al.  Development and Validation of a Sex-Role Ideology Scale , 1978, Psychological reports.

[14]  G. Powell.  Effects of sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment , 1986 .

[15]  Eugene Borgida,et al.  Expert psychological testimony in rape trials: A social-cognitive analysis. , 1988 .

[16]  J. Crites.  A comprehensive model of career development in early adulthood , 1976 .

[17]  M. Burt.  Cultural myths and supports for rape. , 1980, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[18]  Bruce Morasch,et al.  Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting , 1983 .

[19]  L. Hubert,et al.  Multidimensional Scaling: Some Possibilities for Counseling Psychology. , 1987 .

[20]  B. Lott,et al.  Sexual harassment of university students , 1986 .

[21]  C. Muehlenhard,et al.  Do women sometimes say no when they mean yes? The prevalence and correlates of women's token resistance to sex. , 1988, Journal of personality and social psychology.

[22]  J. Kruskal.  Multidimensional scaling by optimizing goodness of fit to a nonmetric hypothesis , 1964 .