SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN A UNIVERSITY WORKPLACE

A Thesis

Presented to

The Faculty of Graduate Studies

of
The University of Guelph

by
COLLEEN E. O'CONNELL

In partial fulfilment of requirements

for the degree of

Master of Arts

August, 1 9 9 7
 Bibliothéque nationaie
1+1 National Library
,canada du Canada
Acquisitions and Acquisitions et
Bibliographic Services seMces bibliographiques
395 Wellington Street 395, nie Wellington
Ottawa ON K1A ON4 ûRawaON KIAON4
Canada Canada

The author has granted a non-
exclusive licence allowing the
National Library of Canada to
reproduce, loan, distribute or sell
copies of this thesis in microfom,
paper or electronic formats.
L'auteur a accordé une licence non
exclusive permettant à la
Bibliothèque nationale du Canada de
reproduire, prêter, distribuer ou
vendre des copies de cette thèse sous
la fome de rnicrofiche/lfilm, de
reproduction sur papier ou sur format
électronique.

The author retains ownership of the L'auteur conserve la propriété du

copyright in this thesis. Neither the
thesis nor substantial extracts fiom it
may be printed or othenirise
reproduced without the author's
permission.
droit d'auteur qui protège cette thèse.
Ni la thèse ni des extraits substantiels
de celle-ci ne doivent être imprimés
ou autrement reproduits sans son
autorisation.
 ABSTRACT

SEXUAL HARAÇSMENT IN A UNIVERSITY WORKPLACE

Colleen E. O'Connel1 Advisor :

University of Guelph, 1997 Professor K. Korabik

This thesis is an investigation of sexual harassment experienced

by women in the workplace. Thxough a survey of 214 female University

employees, a mode1 of sexual harassment focusing on various contributors

and outcornes as they relate to different types O£ harassment was

investigated. Data were analyzed with a multivariate canonical

analysis. Gender harassment (GH) by higher level men was associated

with younger, more educated women, working in male-dominated departments

who possessed negative perceptions of their organization's sanctions

toward sexual harassment. Such conditions were associated with

increases in stress, turnover intentions, negative mood, and decreases

in satisfaction with supervisor. Those with lowex education and incornes

in fernale-dominated departments were also associated with GH which

resulted in decreased work satisfaction. Younger, more educated women

in male-dominated departments and a higher opportunity to intexact with

same-level men were associated with GH and unwanted sexual attention by

cowoxkers. Those with higher incomes in male-dominated departrnents and

an increased opportunity to interact with lower level men were

associated with gender harassment by lower level men. The implications

for organizations are discussed and directions for future research are

proposed .
 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

1 owe a great deal of gratitude to many people who have

contributed in a variety of ways to the completion of my Master's

thesis. 1 am particularly grateful to my advisor, Karen Korabik. 1

certainly could not have chosen a better supervisor for this research

project. Karen was always available when 1 needed her guidance or

advice and 1 have developed a great deal of respect for her. 1 would

like to thank her for sharing her wealth of experience and knowledge

with me over the past two years.

Additionally, 1 received valuable advice and assistance £rom the

other members of my thesis cornmittee, Kevin Kelloway and Joseph Tindale.

Kevin provided many valuable suggestions in terms of research

instruments and data analysis. 1 am grateful to Joseph who, because of

his association with the University's Human Rights and Equity Office,

taught me more about sexual harassrnent issues than 1 ever could have

learned by simply examining the research literature. 1 also thank

Joama Boehnert for her constructive comments on the thesis manuscript

and during my defense.

1 would like to express thanks to my classmates £rom whom 1 have

learned a great deal. 1 must also acknowledge the contributions of the

secretarial staff of the psychology department for their assistance,

those who participated in my study, and those individuals who aided me

in contacting and procuring my sample. 1 would like to give a special

thank you to Data Recovery Labs in Toronto, rny second home these past

few months, for the use of their equipment and facilities.

 1 am indebted to my family who have been supportive of my academic

career from the very beginning and who have provided boundless

encouragement throughout my life. Thanks for everything Mom and Dad.

Finally, 1 would most of ail like to thank Timothy who has proven

himself to be my best friend and much more over the past year. Words

cannot express the gratitude and appreciation 1 feel for this man who

has sacrificed so much in order that 1 may fulfill my persona1 goals.

His devotion and faith in me have been nothing short of inspirational.

So, 1 can honestly Say, without fear of cliché, that 1

' could not have

done it without h i m . " My debt to him is etemal.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii
 F u t u r e Directions

The

References

Appendices
 LIST OF TABLES

Table 3. Component Loadings for Canonical Analysis of Sexual

Harassment by Men at a Lower Level Relative to Female
Respondents .- ---- -- -- -- -- ------ -- -- -- --- --- - -- -- -
.--- -*---. * * -.-. - -- -
** *. - -.-..-- - - - - --- -- .--- - --
* * ** * * - *. + * * -*. * *-* * *
38
 SEXUAL HARASSMENT IN A UNIVERSITY WORKPLACE

Sema1 harassrnent is an issue of increasing concern to North

American organizations and institutes of higher learning. Although

sexual harassment has only recently begun to receive widespread

attention, it is certainly not a just a modern phenomenon. In fact,

published documentation of sexual harassment in the United States dates

back to 1908 (Fitzgerald, Shullman, Bailey, Richards, Swecker, Gold,

Ormerod, & Weitzman, 1988). Indeed, it is arguable that gender-based

workplace harassment has existed in one form or another ever since men

and women began interacting in working and educational environments,

General public awareness of the sema1 harassment issue has never

been stronger with the media focusing attention on such high profile

American events as the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearings, the

United States Navy Tailhook scandal, and the recent allegations of

sexual harassment directed toward President Bill Clinton. Within a

Canadian context, a recent alleged case of sexual harassment at Simon

Fraser University has also garnered widespread interest. Irrespective

of the various opinions people may hold about the often controversial

topic of sexual harassment, it seems at the very least that the issue

has finally been brought to the fore and is receiving deserved

attention. However, it is worth noting that most cases of sexual

harassment take place outside the glare of the media spotlight; indeed,

semial harassrnent on the job is an unfortunate reality for many North

American working women.

In addition to increased information and media attention, the

changing dernographics of work environments have also played a role in

the surfacing of sexual haxassment issues and heightened awareness. ~t

no t h e in history have women occupied such a large proportion of the

workforce. In fact, the odds that any American woman will work outside
the home at some time during her life are about 95 out of 100 and she

can expect to spend about 29.3 years in the labour force (Betz &

Fitzgerald, 1987). The ubiquity of wornen in the workplace has

certainly highlighted sexual harassment as a serious organizational and

societal concern that can no longer be ignored.

Even though sexual harassment has existed for years, it has only

recently become an area of intense research interest. Indeed, as

Morrow, McElroy, and Phillips (1994) point out, sexual harassrnent in

work environments did not become an actively researched topic until the

late 1970s with rnost of the writings on this subject having been

produced in the past decade. Researchers, who have prirnarily been

psychologists, have studied various aspects related to semal

harassrnent including describing its existence and frequency ( e . g . ,

Safran, 1976; United States Merit Systems Protection Board [USMSPB],

1981, 1988) as well as determining individual responses (e.g-,Crull,

1982; Gutek, 1985; Kilpatrick, 1992) and organizational outcornes (e.g.,

Gutek & Koss, 1993). Another important area of investigation has

sought to identify the conditions that contribute to the manifestation

of sexually harassing behaviours (e.g., ~angri,Burt, & Johnson,

1982) .

A general overview of the sexual barassment literature in view of

these areas will be presented. What will emerge £rom this review is

that sexual harassment represents a widespxead workplace hazard with

potentially costly consequences not only for the individual but also

for the entixe organization. It will also become clear that sexual

harassment is a complex problem. Previous research has identified many

conditions that rnay contribute to the manifestation of semal

harassrnent in the workplace and has described various related outcomes

yet it seerns that we still have a limited understanding of the nature

of the process. Before the literature review, however, a brief

rationale for the present study will be presented.

The Present Study

The present study was intended to contribute to a more

comprehensive understanding of the nature of sexual harassment in the

workplace. In this study, we sought to make three important

contributions to the growing body of sexual harassment research.

First, most of the previous research in this area has only examined

specific aspects of sexual harassment (e-g.,the outcomes or

consequences of sexual harassment) or testeà models with limited scope

(e-g.,how particular job contexts may be more vulnerable to the

manifestation of sexually harassing behaviours).

In contrast, we tested a comprehensive model of sexual harassment

that demonstrates how previously identified contributors, types of

harassment, and outcomes are intexrelated. More specifically, in the

present research a model of sexual harassment focusing on persona1

vulnerability £actoxs (e.g-,age, marital status, education, income,

length of employment and experience) and job/organizational context

factors (e.g., gender ratios in the workplace, perceptions of

organizational sanctions toward harassment) as predictors of sexually

harassing behaviours was investigated. As well, various outcomes of

harassment (e.g., psychosomatic health, work-related negative mood,

satisfaction with work, turnover) were examined.

There has been a tendency in the literature to regard sema1

harassment as a unitary construct. Therefore, in this study, we used a

more detailed and clarified concept of sexual harassment. In order to

differentiate between the different types, a clear definition of the

construct of sexual harassment guided the present research.

~itzgerald,Gelfand, and Drasgow (1995; Gelfand, Fitzgerald, & Drasgow,

1995) propose that sexual harassrnent is a behavioural construct

composed of three related, yet conceptually distinct dimensions:

gender harassment, unwanted sema1 attention, and sexual coercion.

Gender harassment generally involves the display of insulting, hostile,

and degrading attitudes toward women, Unwanted sexual attention

includes both verbal and nonverbal behaviour. It can range from

repeated, nonreciprocated requests for dates, intrusive letters and

phone calls, to touching, grabbing and cornering, and gross sexual

imposition. Sema1 coercion involves bribes or threats, whether subtle

or explicit, that condition some job-related benefit on sexual

cooperation.

Finally, an important contribution was also made in that we

tested the mode1 for each of three different levels of perpetrators (or

sources of harassment). Based on previous research concerning the role

of power in sexual harassment (e-g.,Tangri, Burt, & Johnson, 1982), we

examined the interrelationships separately for each of three levels of

perpetrators (sources) relative to the female respondents: higher

level men (e-g.,supervisors), equal level men (e.g., coworkers,

peers) , and lower level men (e.g., subordinates). Therefore, we took

not only the type of harassment into consideration, but the source as

well.

Clearly, establishing models of sexual harassment that

incorporate the various findings to date represents one of the most

useful and needed goals in sexual harassment research. Through the

continued development of models of sexual harassment, it is hoped that

a better understanding of the process will result. Arguably, a more

thorough understanding of the underlying process of sexual harassment

is the first step in designing the most effective workplace

intemention strategies - ones that allow us to prevent sexual
harassrnent before it occurs.

Prevalence

The prevalence data on sema1 harassrnent suggest that it is a

widesprtad problem among working women. In 1976, Redbook published the

results of a groundbreaking readership mail survey which found that 88%

of the 9,000 respondents claimed they had experienced some form of

workplace harassment in the course of their employment (Safran, 1976).

The Redbook survey overlapped with an historical period that involved a

large influx of women into the workforce and drew much needed attention

to the then emerging issue of sexual harassment. If one is to take

this survey at face value, then an astounding nine in ten women have

been sexually harassed. However, early studies, such as that of

Redbook have been criticized on the basis that they relied on nonrandorn

sampling procedures, examined self-identified victims, and involved low

response rates (Fitzgerald & Shullman, 1993) thus resulting in inflated

estimates of harassment frequency.

The more recent surveys ( e . g . , Gutek, 1985; Martindale, 1990;

USMSPB, 1981, 1988) have relied on large stratified random samples and

have enjoyed large response rates, usually in excess of 80%. Such

studies generate more conservative, yet nonetheless substantial,

estimates of sexual harassment frequency. For example, among a random

sample of private sector workers in the Los Angeles area, about 53% of

the women surveyed by telephone reported experiencing at least one

incident that they considered sexual harassrnent during their working

lives (Gutek, 1985). Incidents included insulting comments (19.8%),

insulting looks and gestures (15.481, and sexual touching (24.2%).

Some respondents reported having been expected to participate in sexual

activity as part of the job (7.6%), a very serious form of sexual

harassment.

In 1980, the USMSPB (1981) conducted the first comprehensive

national survey of semial harassment among randomly selected federal

employees. Four out of ten of the 10,648 women surveyed reported

having been the target of sexual harassment during the previous two

years- The experiences were arranged into explicit categories ranging

fxom verbal harassment to blatant sexual assault. Ten percent had been

directly pressured for sexual cooperation as part of the job (a figure

similar to that obtained by Gutek). An update of this often cited

survey found that the frequency of harassment in 1988 was virtually

identical to that reported previously: 42% of al1 women surveyed in

1988 reported they had experienced some form of unwanted and uninvited

sexual attention (USMSPB, 1988).

The prevalence of sexual harassment has also been examined among

women working in univexsity settings. In perhaps the best known survey

of sexual harassment in the academic workplace, Fitzgerald, et al.

(1988; also see Fitzgerald, 1996) assessed the experiences of 300

women, faculty, administrators, and staff who were employed at a

medium-sized public university in the Arnerican mid-west. They found

that over half of the 61 women faculty and 75% of the 61 female

administrators in their sample had experienced some form of gender

harassment in the workplace. Specific behaviours they reported

included the telling of suggestive stories and offensive jokes, crude

sexual remarks, seductive comments, nonverbal harassment such as

staring, leexing or ogling, the use or distribution of sexist material

or pornography, a pattern of sexist remarks about women, and most

frequently, being treated less well simply because they were women.
 Additionally, one in five women professors and nearly one in

three administrators reported being the target of unwanted sexual

advances, including: persistent requests for dates, repeated attempts

to establish a sexual relationship, unwanted discussion of personal or

sexual matters, and unwanted semial attention. Over 25% of the

administrators had received blatant sexual propositions and

approximately half of these women reported being physically touched or

handled at work in ways that made them feel uncomfortable (a

substantial minoxity of these incidents were persistent or forceful in

nature). Remarkably, over 13% of the women administrators reported

being subtly or directly bribed to be sexually cooperative. Nearly 10%

noted that they had received subtle threats and 8% had experienced

actual negative consequences for refusing to cooperate sexually.

Overall, survey data appear to suggest that roughly half of al1

working women will be subject to sexual harassment in one form or

another (Fitzgerald, 1993). However, not al1 instances of harassment

will be of the same severity. As Barak (1994) points out, it appears

that overall the less severe forrns of sema1 harassment (e-g.,verbal

harassment) are more widespread (40% to 90%) than the more severe types

of behaviours such as sexual bribery and sexual assault (2% to 20%)

(Crull, 1982; Fitzgerald, et al., 1988; Gutek, 1985; USMSPB, 1981,

1988). The enormity of sexual harassment comes through when one

considers that it affects a very substantial number of women. Given

that sema1 harassment is a pervasive problem, why should organizations

be concerned? Aside £rom the obvious moral and ethical obligations

ascribed to an employer, why should organizations actively strive to

prevent this problem?

 Outcomes and Costs

A parallel body of research has sought to determine the outcomes

and costs of sexual harassment both in terms of the individual and the

organization- Many organizations tend to think of sexual harassment

simply in terms of direct costs related to litigation and settlements.

Indeed, damage awards can be substantial. For example, former law

secretary, Rena Weeks, was awarded $7.1 million in punitive damages by

a San Francisco court after claiming a lawyer at her firm had groped

her breast ("Breast Groped, Secretary Gets $7.1 Million," 1994).

However, it is woxth noting that such settlements are infrequent

and that most cases of sexual harassment go unreported. In a survey of

federal workers, only about 11% of victims reported harassment to a

higher authority, and only 2.5% used £ormal complaint procedures

(Livingston, 1982). The silence of victims may lead organizations to

underestimate the need to take action against sexual harassment: they

may not see it as a problem. However, just because complaints are not

being made does not necessarily mean that sexual harassrnent does not

exist in the organization. Similarly, it also does not mean that the

organization is not undergoing serious harmful consequences as a result

of its existence. Sexual harassment can potentially lead to indirect

costs in the absence of lawsuits and formal complaints.

Phvsical and Psvcholo~icalWell-beinq

On an individual level, survey results suggest that sexual

harassment can threaten the physical and psychological well-being of

victims. The USMSPB (1981) reported that depending on the severity of

the abuse, between 21 and 82% of women indicated their physical or

emotional condition worsened as a result of harassment. Frequently

self-reported physical symptoms related to sexual harassment include:

gastrointestinal disturbances, headaches, inability to sleep, nausea,

loss of appetite, and weight loss (Gutek, 1985). Further, self-

reported psychological outcomes include: anger, fear, anxiety,

irritability, decreased self-esteem, dread of work, and feelings of

humiliation and vulnerability (Gruber & Bjorn, 1986; Gutek, 1985).

Experience of sexual harassment bas even been linked to serious mental

health problems such as depression (Gutek, 1985) and posttraumatic

stress disorder (Kilpatrick, 1992).

Certainly, one could argue that sexual harassment creates a

stressful working environment. Physiological responses to stress in

organizations have been demonstrated through empirical research (see

Kahn & Byosiere, 1992, for review). Stress has been shown to

negatively impact cardiovascular functioning, especially blood

pressure, as well as gastrointestinal functioning; in particular, by

leading to peptic ulcers. One could infer from the workplace stress

literature that to the extent that sexual harassment is perceived as

stressful, severe negative physical consequences for the victim could

result. However, the physical consequences of sexual harassment

specifically have not been tested through empirical investigation.

Currently, information about victim impact cornes mainly from anecdotal

and clinical accounts (Morrow, McElroy, & Phillips, 1994) and from

self-reported effects included in prevalence studies and convenience

samples (Gutek & Koss, 1993) .

Turnover and Absenteeism

Through its effects on victims, sexual harassment rnay indirectly

lead to a variety of negative organizational outcomes. Intuitively,

this seems to make sense. Organizations operate as systems. To the

extent that individuals are impacted by sexual harassment, the effects

rnay manifest themselves in various ways related to the individualrs

work attitudes and performance. In turn, al1 levels of the system rnay

be affected in some way.

Sexual harassment has been linked to higher rates of turnover

(Coles, 1986). Sexual harassment can lead both directly and indirectly

to turnover. For example, in an effort to avoid harassing behaviour, a

woman may simply withdraw from the situation by quitting. Aïternately,

the discornfort and stress a woman experiences as a result of sexual

harassrnent may be reflected in the way she performs ber job; thus,

leading her to be fired.

The USMSPB (1988) reported that during a two-year period, over

36,000 federal employees quit their jobs, were transferred or

reassigned, or were fired because of sexual harassment. Among 88 cases

filed with the California Departrnent of Fair Employment and Housing,

nearly half had been fired and another quarter had quit out of fear or

frustration (Coles, 1986). An estimate by Gutek (1985) indicates that

up to 10% of harassed women have quit their jobs because of sexual

harassment in the workplace. In turn, the organization may incur

expense related to separation, replacement, and training costs

(Terpstra & Baker, 1986) .

Similarly, victims who avoid work because of semal harassrnent

would cost the employer in sick leave pay and reduced productivity due

to absenteeisrn (Terpstra & Baker, 1986). The organization may also

incur a rise in medical costs for those who seek professional help due

to emotional and physical stress (Terpstra & Baker, 1986). Translating

turnover and absenteeisrn resulting from sexual harassrnent into monetary

terms is difficult but some estimates have been made.

In terms of dollar figures, the USMSPB (1981) estimated that

during a two-year period, the sema1 harassrnent of its employees cost

the federal government approxirnately $189 million related to costs of

replacing employees who left their jobs because of s e m a 1 harassment,

paying medical insurance claims and sick leave to those who missed

work, and absorbing the costs due to decreased productivity. In 1992,

Douglas Baldwin, Senior Vice President of Imperia1 Oil, estimated that

sexual harassment costs the Company almost $8 million per year in

absenteeism, employee turnover, and lost productivity (Falardeau-

Ramsay, 1994). It has further been suggested that sexual harassment

costs Fortune 500 companies more than $6 million apiece a m u a l l y in

productivity (Middlemiss, 1994).

However, given that most women do not report harassment when it

occurs ( e . g . , see USMSPB, 1988), organizations may not even know how

many women have left without indicating that harassment was the reason.

Sirnilarly, organizations may blame the woman for her decreased

productivity without ever considering that it is a function of the

hazardous work environment in which she must perform. Thus, turnover

attributed to sexual harassment may actually be underestimated. A

sirnilar argument could be made for absenteeism. A harassed woman could

conceivably develop a medical condition (e.g., a peptic ulcer) that

causes her to miss a great deal of work yet never indicate to ber

employer that the reason behind ber illness is harassment; she rnay not

even be aware of the connection herself. Because of the sheer numbers

represented, one rnay assume that many instances of turnover are not

functional for the organization. That is, sexual harassment may lead

to the loss of a large nurnber of valuable employees at great expense to

the employer.

Sexual harassment is a complex problem that may have negative

effects on a vast array of interrelated organizational attitudes and

outcomes. For example, Gutek and Koss (1993) proposed that

organizational consequences of sexual harassment may include a

deterioration of interpersonal relations at work; lower levels of

organizational cornmitment, job satisfaction, and job motivation; and

increased levels of job stress. It has further been suggested that

sexual harassment rnay lead to decreased efficiency, poor morale, and a

reduced level of job involvement (Terpstra & Baker, 1986).

The total indirect consequences of sexuai harassrnent are very

difficult to ascertain. For example, it would be alrnost impossible to

determine the costs associated with opportunities missed due to poor

decision-making or decreased creativity (Terpstra & Baker, 1986). To

the extent that known cases of sexual harassment would damage the image

of the organization, the damage to the recruiting process would be

equally bard to assess (Terpstra & Baker, 1986) .

Consider an example from the context of an academic organization.

If a university workplace expexiences known cases of sexual harassment,

that institution may have difficulty attracting and recruiting

outstanding female faculty. If this occurs, the university itself

suffers since the reptation of a university is built largely on the

quality of its teaching and reseaxch staff. In turn, the ability of

the university to attract outstanding students may be affected. A lack

of erninent female faculty and excellent students may seriously inhibit

the university's ability to obtain research grants, scholarships, and

other sources of funding; thus sexual harassment can have effects at

al1 levels of an organizational system. Therefore, the large dollar

figures that have been attributed to sexual harassment may

significantly underestimate the true hidden costs. The fact is we

really do not yet fully undexstand the organizational consequences and

resulting costs of sexual harassment. To date, this area of research

is relatively undeveloped. Most of the reports of organizational

consequences are anecdotal and speculative at this point. Most of the

costs of sexual harassment are hidden and not well understood. The

role of future investigations could be to discover and more fully

explicate these relationships.

However, that sexual harassment can represent a potentially

costly workplace hazard seems quite logical based on the research that

does exist. The costs due to turnover and absenteeism alone are

substantial. Arguably, primary intervention strategies to prevent

sexual harassment before it occurs are preferable to ignoring it and

addxessing it once a lawsuit has been filed; even if the organization

is oblivious to instances of it, sexual harassment may insidiously

wreak its harmful effects at al1 levels of the organization. That is,

the negative effects of sema1 harassment, although sometimes

invisible, can be pervasive and destructive ta the work environment. A

great many women are being subjected to harassment and it may be

costing organizations exorbitant arnounts of dollars. This begs the

question: what leads sexual harassrnent to occur in organizations?

Contributors

Sexual harassment is a cornplex problem. An important area of

investigation has sought to determine what leads harassment to occur in

organizations. In other words, what causes semial harassment? To this

-
end, a limited number of theoretical explanations have been posited

each of which explains some specific aspects of sexual harassment.

The job context in which a woman must perform has been implicated

as a possible contributor to harassing behaviour. For example, the

sex-role spillovex mode1 proposed by Gutek (1985) posits that sexual

harassment may result when gender-based roles are carried over to

irrelevant and inappropriate situations such as interactions in a work

setting. Indeed, survey data suggest that skewed or unbalanced sex

ratios with respect to the job and the work-role set are related to the

experience of harassment among working women (Terpstra & Baker, 1986).

The greater the proportion of men in the work group, the more likely it

is that harassrnent will occur- That is, when there are few women, they

will be more likely to be treated as tokens or symbols in keeping with

their societal sex-role stereotypes,

Accordingly, studies reveal that women in traditional male jobs

are particularly vulnerable to sexual harassment compared to women in

traditional fernale jobs (LaFontaine & Tredeau, 1986). Sexual

harassment in these settings is the "systematic, arbitrary use of male

power and authority to extract sexual favours, to remind women of their

ascribed inferior status, and to deprive them of employment

opportunities and equality" (Aggarwal, 1994, p. 6 7 ) . The implicit

message from men to women in these settings may be: "you're taking a

man's job."

Indeed, studies of the relationship between semial harassment and

the gender traditionality of work have produced interesting findings.

For example, it has been suggested that women in traditional and non-

traditional jobs experience different types of sexual harassment as

well as different kinds of harassers (Lach & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1993).

That is, women in traditional occupations indicate that harassment is

likely to be "characterized by the threat of losing a job for failing

to comply with sexual demands. Their harassment may begin as subtle

compliments, hints for dates, or playful jokes and teasingM (Lach &

Gwartney-Gibbs, 1993, p. 108). Carothers and Cru11 (1984) found that

when women in traditional jobs rejected their harassers, they were

faced with work sabotage, reprimands, and job loss . However, women in

nontraditional jobs seerned more likely to experience sexual harassment

in the form of a ~sexuallydemeaning work environment, including

hostile and threatening sexual remarks accompanied by other (nonsexual)

acts designed to let women know they are outsiders at the workplace"

(Lach & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1993, p. 108) .

Q r u u t i o n a l Context

In addition to job context, the organizational context may also

have some effect on the presence of harassment. It has been suggested

that the provision of inadequate formal policies may encourage the

development of sexual harassment. Surprisingly, many companies neglect

to draft a policy at all- One Canadian study found that only 55% of

the organizations surveyed had a sexual harassment policy in place

(Falardeau-Ramsay, 1994). Similarly, policies that do not clearly

define sexual harassment rnay discourage their use by victims. Policies

may be constructed such that women may be prevented from labeling a

negative experience as harassment leading it to go unreported (Riger,

1991) .

Survey research findings underlie this point. That is, women

report higher rates of harassment when asked if they have been the

target of specific harassing behaviours than when asked a general

question about whether they have been harassed (Fitzgerald, et al.,

1988). Women are also more willing to report negative reactions to

offensive behaviours than they are to label those behaviours as sexual

harassment (Brewer, 1982). This suggests that inadequate policies and

organizational responses may contribute to an underlying tendency for

women to consider harassing behaviours to be normative, thus allowing

thcm to continue.

Survey research also shows that men label fewer behaviours at

work as harassment than women do (Kenig & Ryan, 1986; Konrad & Gutek;

1986). In contrast to wornen who find sexual overtures at work to be

insulting, men find similar approaches to be flattering (Gutek, 1985);

and, while both men and women agree that certain blatant behaviours,

such as sexual assault, constitute harassment, women are more likely to

see as harassment more subtle behaviours such as looks or gestures

(Kenig & Ryan, 1986; USMSPB, 1981). hirther, even when they do

identify behaviour as harassment, men are more likely to think that

women will be flattered by it (Kirk, 1988).

If policies are constructed in a gender neutral marner, then what

constitutes harassment may not reflect woments viewpoints (Riger,

1991). Their complaints rnay not be seen as valid thus discouraging

women from pursuing grievances. Policies that are judgment-based may

inhibit women from pursuing complaints allowing harassment to continue

and perhaps creating a perception that it is tolerated by the

organization. Thus organizational context in the form of perceptions

of tolerance of sexual harassment and the presence and strength of

formal organizational policies against it may play a role in the

incidence of sexually harassing behaviours (Fitzgerald, Hulin, &

Drasgow, 1992).

Therefore, the literature backs up the contention that the mere

presence of a sema1 harassment policy is not enough. In order to be

effective in dealing with sexual harassment, the organization must

develop a policy that is accessible to women and must be willing to

stand behind that policy. Simply paying "lip service" to sexual

harassment issues arguably shows a blatant disregard for the

seriousness of the problem and constitutes an ineffective means of

dealing with it; organizations need to develop a strong commitment to

eradicating sexual harassment and be willing to demonstrate that

cornmitment.
Power
It has been argued, particularly from a feminist perspective,

that sexual harassment is fundamentally about power and more

specifically, about the subordinate position of women in the workplace.

Indeed, the place of women in the workforce renders them vulnerable to

sexual harassment. Women typically occupy positions that are lower in

status than their male coworkers; 75% of al1 women working in the

United States are in sex-segregated jobs supervised by men (Faley,

1982). Further, even when women occupy coveted management positions,

they tend to be crowded into the lower and middle levels and have

little authority over others, especially men (US Department of Labour,

1991) .

As such, the organizational power mode1 (e.g., Tangri, et al.,

1982) posits that sexual harassment is primarily due to this prevailing

organizational structure in which most positions of authority are held

by men. It is axgued that men abuse their status, and the power that

cornes with it, for sexual gain. Alternately, Farley (1978) suggests

that dominance, not sexual desire, is the motive for harassing

behaviour by men. That is, because of its impact on women, sexual

harassment is an effective means of "keeping women in their place" and

the job market segregated by sex (Farley, 1978).

Arguably, although power always seems to play some role in sexual

harassment, different power issues may be involved depending on the

source of the harassment (Cleveland, 19%) . For example, supervisors

possess the ability to distribute and withhold rewards and punishments

and are responsible for preparing employee performance evaluations.

Thus, one might expect that the formal position power a supewisor

holds may be used to harass subordinates; for example, by making a

promotion contingent upon sexual cooperation. Indeed, supervisors are

typically the ones who engage in these more severe forms of workplace

hawassment (Gutek, 1985).

However, even though supenrisors are associated with more severe

forms, coworkers have been found to be the most frequent perpetratoxs

of sexual harassment in organizations (although they tend to engage in

less severe forms) (Cleveland, 1994). It has been suggested that male

coworkers may be hostile toward women who challenge or compete with

them for jobs (Carothers & Crull, 1984) . Thus, "coworkers can exercise

power by providing or withholding information, cooperation, and

supportw (Cleveland, 1994, p. 176). By highlighting a women's sex role

(e-g., through gender harassment), an environment can be created

wherein a woman is made to feel part of an outgroup; a chilly clirnate

is created.

Interestingly, as Cleveland and Kerst (1993) concur, there is

accumulating evidence that suggests a woman who occupies the same

forrnal position as a man simply does not have the same level of

authority or influence in the organization (e.g., Kanter, 1977;

Ridgeway, 1 9 9 2 ) . Therefore, it appears that sexual harassment

perpetrated by male coworkers rnay be an attempt to maintain power

levels that advantage men. Indeed, some research suggests that men are

threatened by women coworkers; a belief exists that an increase in

power for women translates into a decrease in power for men (DiTomaso,

1989).

Women can even be the objects of sexual harassment from men who

occupy less powerful positions in the organization relative to

themselves; "contrapower harassmentM is the term coined by Benson

(1984) to describe such a situation. For example, in a study of women

professors, Graverholz (1989) found that 47.6% of respondents had

experienced some form of sexual harassment from students. Gender

harassment and sexist comments were most frequently reported.

Cleveland and Kerst (1993) point out that "whereas supervisory

power may serve as an enabling mechanism in harassment by supervisors

(i-e.,supervisors harass because they have the power to coerce sexual

favours or the latitude to engage in offensive behaviour), harassment

by both peers and subordinates is more likely to be done to gain power

or to minimize power differentials. Therefore, although power rnay be a

central construct in understanding the harassing behaviour of members

of al1 three groups (i.e., supervisor, peer, and subardinate), the

mechanisms linking power (and the relevant bases of power) to sema1

harassment may differ substantially, depending on the position of the

harasser" (p. 58) .

It has been suggested that certain individual characteristics may

play a role in sexual harassment. Sexual harassers tend to be married,

older than their target, and the same race as their target (Pryor,

1987). Targets of sexual harassment are likely to be younger, single

or divorced, and have a higher education (Lach & Gwartney-Gibbs, 1993).

Integrating the Findings

The findings to date each address some aspect of harassment, yet

none seems to pxovide a comprehensive explanation of how it evolves as

a process. For example, the sex-role spillover mode1 in itself

provides an insufficient explanation of sema1 harassment in

organizations. That is, it speaks only to specific workplace

characteristics and neglects the potential influence of other variables

that may also be operating, and perhaps interacting, at the same time.

For example, how individual characteristics interaet with different

aspects of the work environment, and with each other, is not clear.
 One should keep in mind that sexual harassment is a complex

process rather than a series of isolated incidents and that it occurs

within a context. Very few models have been proposed which attempt to

incorporate the findings that have been made to date into one

corrrprehensive model that examines what variables interact under which

conditions to result in sexual harassment. That is, few researchers

have sought to integrate the previously identified contributors to, and

outcomes of, semial harassment into one model.

As an example of one exception, Fitzgerald, Hulin, and Drasgow

(1992) provide an integrated model of sexual harassment wherein

organizational context ( e . g . , presence and strength of formal policies)

and job context (e.g., gender traditionality of work), as well as

persona1 vulnerability (e.g., age, race) are thought to contribute to

experiences of sexual harassment. In tnrn, sema1 harassment leads to

certain outcomes (e-g.,job outcomes, health outcomes). However, this

model tends to regard sexual harassment as a unitary construct and does

not incorporate the source of the harassment (e-g.,supervisor,

coworker, subordinate).

Arguably, however, in agreement with Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and

Drasgow (1995), there are qualitative differences between different

types of harassment (i.e., gender harassment, unwanted sexual

attention, and sexual coercion) . Presumably, different types of

harassment may manifest under different conditions. Further, with al1

of the different outcomes that have been linked to the unitary

construct of sexual harassment, it seems reasonable to believe that not

al1 types of harassment will necessarily lead to the same outcomes; for

example, intuitively one would think that being coerced into a sexual

relationship with threats of losing one's job might lead to a different

result than the occasional sexist joke in the office. Researchexs need
to move away £rom lumping al1 types of harassment together. It is also

becoming clear that there is no one cause of, or contributor to, sexual

harassment. In any given harassment situation, there are many

variables operating and interacting at once. When attempting to

develop models of sexual harassment, one must appreciate the complexity

of the entire process. The present study was designed with this in

mind .

METHOD

Participants and Procedure

The population of interest for this study was al1 full-time women

faculty (e.g., professors, librarians), professional/managerial (e.g.,

administrators), exempt employees (e-g.,administrative assistants,

executive secretaries), and university staff (e.g.,

clerical/secretarial workers, technical staff) employed at a Canadian

university during the spring term of 1997 (N = 905). To be included in

the study, the women had to be employed by the university for at least

two years. A survey package was sent to these women via campus mail.

The survey package included a cover letter (Appendix A), a consent form

(Appendix B), a questionnaire (Appendix Cl, and sealed debriefing

materials (~ppendixDl. Participants were instructed to refer to the

past 24 months when answering survey questions, unless otherwise

indicated, and to return the consent form separately from the

questionnaire itself in order to protect their anonymity. The

university had a sexual and gender harassment policy in place when the

survey was conducted .

Useable replies were received from 214 of the women while about 3

packages were returned as undeliverable (e-g.,due to retirement)

resulting in an overall response rate of 24% (with no follow-up). Of

those who responded, about 24% were faculty, 21% were

professional/managerial, II% were exempt, 39% were university staff,

and 3 % did not classify themselves- Three completed questionnaires

were received from women who did not fully meet the inclusion criteria

(i.e., they were not employed by the university for at least 2 years).

Because of the controls protecting for anonymity, the individual

questionnaires of these women could not be identified; therefore, they

ended up being included in the analysis (the three surveys represented

only 1% of the total replies). By group, the return rate for faculty

was about 3 9 % , for professional/managerial about 26%, for exempt

workers about 22%, and for university staff about 17%. The average age

of the sample was 45.2 years and the range was 22 to 65 years.

Measures

Persona1 V u l n m i l i t y

Data were obtained using single-item questions on six demographic

variables: age, marital status, income bracket, and education level as

well as length of time in current position (i.e. , tenure) and

experience in current position.

Job and Oruanizational Context

Oraanizational sanctions. Respondent perceptions of the forma1

organizational sexual harassment policy were assessed using the

Organizational Sanctions against Sexual Harassment scale developed by

Dekker and Barling (in press). The 8-item scale was designed to assess

the perceived seriousness of the organization's response to sexual

harassment and the harassment grievance policy. Examples of items

include: 'The organization that 1 work for takes s e m a l harassment

complaints very seriouslyN and "In this Company, if you know who to

talk to, you can get 'off the hook' when a sexual harassment cornplaint

is filed against you" (reverse coded). Responses were scored on a 5 -

point Likert-type scale ranging from "Strongly disagree" to "Strongly

 agree." The alpha reliability for the scale in the present study was

.79.

teraction omortynitv.
- A subjective measure of the workplace
sex ratio was obtained using Ellis, Barak, and Pinto's (1991)

adaptation of Konrad and Gutek's (1986) scale measuring the subjective

rate of interpersonal interactions with men at the workplace. Using a

5-point scale (ranging from "Not at allu to 'To a very large extent"),

respondents indicated the extent to which they (a) had opportunities to

be in the Company of men; (b) to talk to men on subjects related to

work; and (c) to establish social relations with men at their

workplace. The scale was altered for the present study such that

respondents were asked to indicate their responses separately for men

at a higher, equal, and lower levels relative to thernselves.

Boss and mentor. One question was included that asked

respondents to indicate whether their boss was (1) Male or (2) Female.

Also, a question was included that asked respondents to indicate

whether the colleague who had been most helpful was (1) Male or ( 2 )

Female (i.e . , mentor) .

Gender ratios. The gender ratios of coworkers and of the whole

department or work unit were obtained using a scale adapted from

Nicholson and West (1988). To obtain the coworker gendex ratio,

participants were asked to indicate the number of coworkers who were

male and the number who were female. The two values were computed to

indicate the proportion of female coworkers and then converted to a 10-

point scale. The gender ratio of the whole work unit was obtained

using a single-item 7-point scale.

tn-S Frewency
The Sexual Experiences Questionnaire (SEQ) Form W (for use with

working women) (~itzgerald,Drasgow, & Gelfand, 1993) was used to

obtain data on the prevalence of sexual harassment. The SEQ is

comprised of items written in behavioural terms (with the exception of

the criterion item "Have you ever been sexually harassed?") that formed

three sub-scales of 6 items each: gender harassment; unwanted sexual

attention; and sexual coercion. Additionally, there was one item to

assess attempted sexual assault. Responses to each item are made on a

5-point Likert-type scale: Never (1); Once or Twice (2); Sometimes

(3) ; Often (4); and Most of the Time (5).

The SEQ was amended slightly for the present study. For each

item, respondents were asked to indicate their responses differentially

for men at a higher, equal, and lower level relative to themselves

(where applicable). Potentially, therefore, each item could yield one

response for each of the three levels of perpetrators.

Outcornes
Work-related neqative mood. Work-related negative mood was

assessed using a 15-item modified and expanded version of Nowlisf

(1965) 12-item mood adjective checklist (as described by Barling,

Dekker, Loughlin, Kelloway, Fullagar, & Johnson, 1996). Using a 5-

point Likert-type scale (ranging from "Not at allu to "Al1 of the

the"), respondents were asked to indicate how often in the past 24

months they have experienced: anger (5 items); anxiety (5 items) ; and

sadness ( 5 items). Alpha reliability for the scale in the current

study was . 9 2 .

P s y c w a l t h . Psychosomatic health was assessed using

the 22-item scale developed by Spence, Helmreich, and Pred (1987).

Five-point scales were used to provide information concerning the

presence of respiratory infections, digestion and elimination problems,

headaches, sleeping habits, and general health. Alpha reliability for

the total scale in the present study was -89.

 Perceived stress. Perceived stress was measured using a 14-item

scale by Cohen, Kamarck, & Mermelstein (1983). Respondents were asked

to indicate how often they had felt a certain way over the last month.

A 5-point Likert-type scale was used ranging from (1) Never to ( 5 ) Very

Often. An example of an item included: 'In the last month, how often

have you felt that you were effectively coping with the important

changes that were occurring in your life?" (reverse coded). Alpha

reliability for the ~erceivedStress scale was .89.

Job stress, Job stress was assessed using 15-items from the 24-

item scale adapted from Fiedler, Potter, Zais, and Knowlton (1979) by

Chemers, Hays, Rhodewalt, and Wysocki (1985). Each item was rated on a

5-point scale ranging from "No stress at alltito "Extreme stress"

according to the amount of stress the respondent experienced over the

past 24 months with respect to that aspect of the job (there was a 'Not

applicablen option for those aspects that did not apply to the

respondentis job situation). The present study focused on three

aspects of job stress comprised by the following sub-scales: stress

with supervisor (8 items), stress with coworkers ( 3 items), and stress

with subordinates (4 items). Alpha reliabilities were -91, -88, and -89

for each of the sub-scales, respectivefy.

Work satisfaction. Work satisfaction was measured using an 18-

item sub-scale from Smith, Kendall, and Hulin's (1969) Job Description

Index ( J D I ) . Respondents were asked to indicate whether certain words

or phrases described their jobs. Alpha reliability for the work

satisfaction sub-scale was .79.

Satisfaction with su~ervisor.coworkers. and suboruates. Two

other JDI sub-scales were used to assess satisfaction with supervisor

and satisfaction with coworkers. Alpha reliablities for the two sub-

scales were each .88. Satisfaction with subordinates was assessed by

amending the JDI such that an additional category was created in which

respondents were asked to describe their subordinates using the same

items contained in the coworkers sub-scale. The alpha reliability for

the new suboxdinate sub-scale was -86. Al1 four sub-scales of the JDI

had a "Not applicable" option for those aspects that did not apply to

the respondent's job situation.

m o v e r Utentio- Turnover intentions were assessed using a

7-item scale adapted from a scale described by Rosin and Korabik

(1991).

RESüLTS

Descriptive Statistics

Descriptive statistics in the form of means, standard deviations,

and intercorrelations among variables can be found in Appendix E. The

survey asked women to report incidents of sexual harassment experienced

over the past 24 months. Overall, 69% of the women surveyed reported

having experienced at least one sexual harassment incident by men at

higher levels relative to themselves. Sexual harassment by men at

equal levels was reported by 62% of the women while harassment by lower

level men was reported by 42%. None of the women reported experiencing

attempts at sexual assault. Fifty-four percent of the total sample

indicated that they believed they had been sexually harassed as

indicated by responses the SEQ criterion item: "Have you ever been

sexually harassed?"

Sema1 Harassment bv Hisher Tlevel Men

Gender harassment was the most frequently reported type of

harassment by men at higher levels relative to female respondents.

Sixty-eight percent of the women surveyed reported having experienced

at least one incident of gender harassment by men at higher levels.

Specific behaviours they reported included the presence of sexist

remarks about women (34%); the habitua1 telling of suggestive stories

and jokes (28%); crude and offensive sexual remarks (13%); and the

display, use or distribution of sexist or suggestive materials such as

pictures, stories or pornography (6%). Thirty-five percent of the

women reported being subject to 'put downs" or condescending attitudes

while 58% reported being treated less well by higher level men simply

because they were women.

Unwanted sexual attention was the second most frequently reported

forni of sexual hasassment by men at higher levels relative to female

respondents. Twenty percent of the women surveyed reported

experiencing at least one incident of unwanted sexual attention by

higher level men. Examples of specific behaviours they reported

included unwanted attempts to draw the women into discussions of

persona1 or sexual matters (19%); touching (15%); attempts to establish

a romantic relationship despite efforts to discourage it (3%);

persistent requests for dates, drinks, dinner, even when the women said

"no" (2%); and unwanted atternpts to stroke or fondle (1%).

Semial coercion was by far the least frequently reported form of

sexual harassment by higher level men relative to female respondents.

Three percent of the women reported that they had experienced at least

one incident of sexually coercive behaviour by men at higher levels.

Situations included implications that it was necessary for the women to

respond positively to sexual or social invitations in order to be well-

treated on the job (2%); feeling subtly bribed with some sort of reward

or special treatment for engaging in sexual behaviour (1%);and feeling

subtly threatened with some sort of retaliation for not being sexually

cooperative (1%). One percent of the women reported that they felt

afraid they would be treated poorly if they did not cooperate sexually.

Furthemore, one percent of the women reported receiving implications

of faster promotions or better treatment if they were sexually

cooperative.

nt bv E
& Level M a

Gender harassment was the most frequently reported type of

harassment by men at relatively the same levels as female respondents.

Sixty-one percent of the women surveyed reported at least one incident

of gender harassment by men at their own levels. Specific behaviours

the women reported included being treated "differently" (e.g.,

mistreated, slighted, ignored) because they were women (42%); the

telling of suggestive stories or offensive jokes (39%); sexist remarks

about women (28%); being "put dom" because they were women (27%);

crude and offensive sema1 remarks (16%); and the display, use, or

distribution of sexist or suggestive materials such as pictures,

stories or pornography (9%).

Unwanted sexual attention was the second most frequently reported

type of sexual harassment for equal level men. Twenty percent of the

women surveyed reported having experienced at least one incident of

unwanted sexual attention by men at about the same levels as

themselves. Frequently reported situations included: touching (11%);

unwanted attempts to draw them into discussions of persona1 or sexual

matters (11%); attempts to establish a romantic relationship despite

efforts to discourage it (3%); persistent requests for dates, drinks,

dinner (1%); and attempts to stroke or fondle (1%).

Sema1 coercion was the least frequently reported form of sexual

harassment by equal level men. Three percent of the respondents

indicated that they had experienced at least one incident of sexually

coercive behaviour by men at equal levels relative to themselves.

Situations included feeling subtly bribed with some sort of reward or

special treatment to engage in sexual behaviour (2%); feeling subtfy

threatened with some sort of retaliation for not being sexually

cooperative (1%); and implications that it was necessary for the women

to respond positively to semial or social invitations in order to be

well-treated on the job (1%).

T~owerLevel M a

Gender harassment was the most frequently reported type of sexual

harassment by men at lower levels relative to female respondents.

Forty-one percent of the women surveyed reported at least one incident

of gender harassment by men at lower levels. Specific behaviours

included being treated "dif£erentlyU (e-g.,mistreated, slighted,

ignored) because they were women (27%); the telling of suggestive

stories or jokes ( 2 4 % ); sexist remaxks (15%); being "put d o m " or being

subject to condescending attitudes because they were women (15%); and

crude and offensive sexual remarks (11%) and the display, use, or

distribution of sexist or suggestive materials such as pictures,

stories, or pornography (5%).

Unwanted sexual attention by lower level men was reported by 14%

of the women surveyed. Reported incidents included unwanted attempts

to draw them into discussions of persona1 or sexual matters (7%);

touching (5%); and attempts to establish romantic relationçhips with

the women despite efforts to discourage it (1%).

Sexual coercion was the least frequent type of harassment

reported for men at lower levels relative to wornen repondents. Only 1%

of the women reported having being sexually coerced by lower level men.

Incidents included feelings of being subtly bribed with some sort of

reward or special treatment to engage in sexual behaviour (1%) and

feeling subtly threatened with some sort of retaliation for not being

sexually cooperative (1%). One percent of the women surveyed reported

implications that it was necessary for them to respond positively to

sexual or social invitations in order to be well-treated on the job and

one percent reported implications that they would be treated poorly if

they did not cooperate sexually.

Multivariate Analysis

The rnultivariate analysis used in this study was canonical

correlation. The OVERALS method was used to compute the canonical

correlation because this method does not restrict analysis to only two

variable sets (Verdegaal, 1986, as cited by Rosin & Korabik, 1991!,

thus allowing for the sirnultaneous consideration of al1 four sets of

variables of interest in this investigation. Also, it is not a

requirement of the OVERALS method (unlike linear canonical analysis)

that the sets of multiple variables be linearly related or that the

variables be intervally scaled. As in linear canonical correlation,

however, the goal is to account for as much variance in the

relationships among the sets as possible.

The four sets used in the analysis were: (1) persona1

vulnerability variables; ( 2 ) job/organizational context variables; (3)

type of harassment; and (4) outcome variables. The OVERALS analysis is

useful for investigating the interrelationships among sets of variables

and determining the magnitude and direction of those relationships.

Overall, the purpose of the OVERALS analysis in this study was to test

the proposed mode1 of sexual harassment by assessing the degree of

correspondence among the four sets of variables.

An OVERALS analysis for the four sets of variables was run once

for each of the different levels of perpetrators relative to

respondents: sexual harassment by higher level men, sexual harassrnent

by equal level men, and sexual harassment by lower level men (the

sexual assault item was not included in any of the analyses because

none was reported). "The size of the loadings relative to one another
indicates the importance of the variables in each set and the magnitude

of the loadings indicates which variables are worth investigating"

(Rosin & Korabik, 1991, p. 9 ) . A cutoff value of -40 was established

by the researcher for interpreting loadings.

For each of the three levels of perpetrators, a mode1 was tested

using one-, two-, and three-dimensional solutions. Three was the

maximum number of dimensions tested because in an OVERALS analysis the

maximum number of dimensions should not exceed the number of variables

in the smallest set; there were three variables in the set concerning

type of harassment. The fit and interpretability of the three models

were compared and based on that comparison one mode1 for each level was

chosen for interpretation.

In a solution made up of more than one dimension (or variate),

the first canonical variate will account for more of the variance than

the second variate with each successive variate accounting for less

variance than the one preceeding it ( e - g . , variate one would account

for more variance than variate two, variate two would account for more

than variate three, etc.) Each of the variates is orthogonal in that

it shares none of variance associated with the other variates in the

analysis. It is useful to conceptualize canonical analysis as being

akin to factor analysis in this respect.

Centroid plots are often used in an OVERALS analysis in order to

clarify nonlinear relationships. Essentially, centroids are the

averages for al1 objects in a particular category. A category, for

example, could be a particular age group - women aged 40 to 45 years.

al Harassrnent bv W r I,evel Men

A two-dimensional solution explained 52% of the variance in the

four variable sets (i.e., personal vulnerability, job/organizational

context, harassment type, and outcomes) while the one-dimensional and

three-dimensional solutions explained 52.6% and 49% of the variance,

respectively. Because it explained relatively the same amount of

variance as the one-dimensional solution and provided more

interpretable results, the two-dimensional solution was used in the

analysis. The results of the canonical (OVERALS) analysis for sexual

harassment by higher level men can be found in Table 1. The results

for each of the two variates (i-e.,dimensions) will be presented

separately.

Variate Variate one explained 27% of the variance. Based on

the magnitude of the loadings and the predetermined cutoff point of -40

for interpretation, only two of the persona1 vulnerability variables

made important contributions to the canonical correlation: age (-.52)

- In the job/organizational context variable set,

and education (-40)

oxganizational sanctions (-.4S) and proportion of female coworkers (-

-40) were found to be important. From the set of sexual harassment

type variables, only gender harassment (.65) was found to make an

important contribution. Four of the outcome variables made

important contributions to the canonical analysis: work-related

negative mood (-491,perceived stress (.41), satisfaction with

supervisor (-.4S),and turnover (-56).

Thus the following relationships emerged from variate one of the

canonical analysis: Gender harassment by men at a higher level

relative to the female victim tended to be associated with younger,

more highly educated women in contexts where perceptions of

organizational sanctions were low and where there were a higher

proportion of male coworkers versus fernales. These conditions were

associated with higher reports of work-related negative mood, perceived

stress, and turnover as well as decreased satisfaction with supervisor.

Table 1. Component Loadings for Canonical Analysis of Sexual Harassment
by Men at a Higher Level Relative to Female Respondents

Loadings

Variables Variate 1 Variate 2

Set 1: Persona1 Vulnerability

Age
Marital status
Education
Income
Tenure
Experience

Set 2: Job/Organizational Context

Organizational sanctions
Interaction opportunity - higher
Boss
Mentor
Proportion female coworkers
Department gender ratio

Set 3: Sexual Harassment

Gender harassment
Unwanted sexual attention
Sexual coercion

Set 4: Outcomes

Work-related negative mood

Psychosomatic health
Perceived stress
Stress with supervisor
Satisfaction with supervisor
Work satisfaction
Turnover intentions
 An examination of the centroid plots provided more detail in

order to clarify some of the relationships that were not completely

linear. While the youngest group in this analysis (i.e., those 35

years and younger) was most likely to experience gender harassment,

women in the 45 to 49 age group were the next most vulnerable group.

Membership in the highest age group (i.e., those 56 years and older)

was least associated with incidents of gender harassment.

Variate two explaincd 25% of the variance. Based on

the magnitude of the loadings and the predetermined cutoff value, two

of the personal vulnerability variables made important contributions to

the canonical correlation: education (--58) and income (--80).

Proportion of female coworkers (.64) made the only important

contribution among the job/organizational context variables while

gender harassment (.45) made the only important contribution among the

sexual harassment type variables. From the outcome variables, work

satisfaction made an important contribution (-.48) .

Thus the following relationship emerged from the canonical

analysis: Gender harassment by men at a higher level relative to the

female victirn tended to be associated with women with less education

and lower incomes in contexts with a higher proportion of female

coworkers versus male coworkers. Such conditions were associated with

reports of decreased work satisfaction.

An examination of the centroid plots provided more detail in

order to clarify some of the relationships that were not completely

linear. While membership in the group with the least education (i.e.,

some high school) was most associated with higher incidents of gender

harassment in this analysis, women who had completed community college

were the next most vulnerable group. Those with post-graduate degrees

and some post-graduate study were least associated with gender

harassrnent in the variate two analysis. Women with lower incornes were

most associated with higher incidents of gender harassment in the

variate two analysis but those in the $30,000 to $45,000 range were

slightly more vulnerable than those in the $30,000 and under group.

Women in the highest incorne bracket ($115,001 and over) were least

associated with gender harassment in the variate two analysis while

those in the $75,001 to $90,000 group or the $60,000 to $75,000 group

were the next least vulnerable.

ai Harasment bv Eaual Level MW

The best fit for the data was provided by a one-dimensional

solution that explained 59% of the variance in the four variable sets.

The two-dimensional and three-dimensional solutions explained only 53%

and 50% of the variance, respectively. The results of the canonical

(0VERA.M) analysis for sexual harassment by equal level men can be

found in Table 2.

Based on the magnitude of the loadings and the predetermined cut-

off value (i.e., .40), thxee of the persona1 vulnerability variables

made important contributions to the canonical correlation: age (-.40),

education (.60), and income ( - - 4 8 ). Among the job/organizational

context variables, the opportunity to interact with equal level men

(-54) and the proportion of female coworkers (-.70) made important

contributions. Both gender harassment (.70) and unwanted sexual

attention (-47) made important contributions to the canonical

correlation. None of the outcome variables made important

contributions to the analysis but two of them closely approached the

- 4 0 cut-off and will be noted: perceived stress (.38) and turnover

(.39) .

Thus the following relationships resulted £rom the canonical

analysis of sexual harassment by equal level men: Gender harassrnent

Table 2. Component Loadings for Canonical Analysis of Sexual Harassment
by Men at an Equal Level Relative to Female Respondents

Variables Loadings

Set 1: Persona1 Vulnerability

Age
Marital status
Educat ion
Income
Tenure
Experience

Set 2: Job/Organizational Context

Organizational sanctions
Interaction opportunity - equal
Boss
Mentor
Proportion female coworkers
Department gender ratio

Set 3: Sexual Harassment

Gender harassrnent
Unwanted s e m a 1 attention
Sexual coercion

Set 4: Outcornes

Work-related negative mood

Psychosomatic health
Perceived stress
Stress with coworkers
Satisfaction with coworkers
Work satisfaction
Turnover intentions
 and unwanted semial attention tended to be associated with younger

women who were more highly educated in environments with a higher

proportion of male coworkers and a higher oppoxtunity to interact with

males at the same level. Income was an important persona1

vulnerability variable as well but its interrelationship with the other

variables was markedly nonlinear.

An examination of the centroid plots provided more detail in

order to clarify the clearly nonlinear relationships. Women with

incomes in the $75,001 to $90,000 range (the group with the second

highest incomes reported in the study) were most associated with gender

harassment and unwanted sexual attention in this analysis while the

next most vulnerable group was women earning below $30,000. Those

earning between $60,001 and $75,000 were the next most vulnerable

group. The group earning between $30,000 and $45,000 had the most

negative association with incidents of gender harassment and unwanted

sexual attention.

Sexual Harassrnent bv Lower JievelMeq

The best fit for the data was provided by a one-dimensional

solution that explained 61% of the variance in the four variable sets

(i-e.,persona1 vulnerability, job/organizational context, harassment

type, and outcomes). The two- and three- dimensional solutions

explained only 57% and 54% of the variance, respectively. The results

of the canonical (OVERALS) analysis for sexual harassment by lower

level men can be found in Table 3.

Based on the magnitude of the loadings and the predetermined cut-

off point of .40 for interpretation, three of the persona1

vulnerability variables made important contributions to the canonical

correlation: age (-.41), education (.60), and income (.62). In the

job/organizational context set, opportunity to interact with men at a

Table 3 . Component Loadings for Canonical Analysis of Sexual Harassment
by Men at a Lower Level Relative to Female Respondents

Variables Loadings

Set 1: Personal Vulnerability

Ag=
Marital status
Educat ion
Income
Tenure
Experience

Set 2: Job/Organizational Context

Organizational sanctions
Interaction opportunity - lower
Boss
Mentor
Proportion female coworkers
Department gender ratio

S e t 3: Sexual Harassment

Gender harassment
Unwanted semial attention
Sexual coercion

Set 4: Outcomes

Work-related negative mood

Psychosomatic health
Perceived stress
Stress with subordinates
Satisfaction with subordinates
Work satisfaction
Turnover intentions
lower level (-45) and proportion of fernale coworkers ( - - 6 8 ) were found

to be important. In the sema1 harassrnent set, only gender harassment

( - 6 6 )was found to make an important contribution while none of the

variables in the outcome set was found to meet the cut-off for

interpretation.

Thus the following relationship resulted from the canonical

analysis: Gender harassrnent by men at a lower level relative to female

targets tended to be associated with wornen having higher incomes in

environments where there was a higher proportion of male coworkers and

a higher opportunity to interact with males at a lower level. Age and

education were important variables but their interrelationship with

other variables was not linear.

An examination of the centroid plots provided more detail in

order to clarify clearly nonlinear relationships. Higher incidents of

gender harassrnent were most associated with the youngest women in the

study (i.e., those youngex than 35 years) while the 50 to 55 age group

was also associated with higher levels of gender harassment. The

lowest levels of gender harassment incidents were associated with those

in the highest age group ( i - e . , those 56 years and over). For the

education variable, wornen who had received technical school training

were most highly associated with higher incidents of gender harassrnent

while those with a post-graduate degree or a Bachelor's degree

followed. Those with some high school education were least likely to

be targets of gender harassrnent in this analysis.

DISCUSSION

Types and Extent of S e m a 1 Harassrnent

On a general level, the frequency data in Our study suggest that

the sexual harassment of wornen by men is a relatively common

occurrence. However, in accordance with previous studies (e.g,,

Fitzgerald, et al., 1988; USMSPB, 1981, 1988) , we found that less

severe forms of harassment (e-g.,gender harassment) were more widely

reported than the more severe types of behaviours (e.g., sexual

coercion). This pattern held regardless of the source (or perpetrator)

of the harassment.

In contrast to previous studies that have found coworkers (i-e.,

men at about the same level as the women) to be the most frequent

perpetrators of sexual harassmezit in organizations (see Cleveland,

1994), we found in our sample that sexual harassment was most often

perpetrated by men at higher levels: 69% of the women reported having

experienced at least one sexual harassment incident by men at higher

levels relative to themselves (e-g.,supervisors) while harassment by

men at equal levels (e.g., coworkers, peers) was reported by 62% of the

women and harassment by lower level men was reported by 42%.

The frequency of gender harassment by higher level men and equal

level men was relatively similar with 68% of the women reporting

experiencing at least one incident of gender harassment by men at

higher levels and 61% percent of the women reporting gender harassment

by equal level men. Interestingly, 20% of the women surveyed reported

being the target of unwanted semial attention by higher level men and

the same percentage reported being the target of equal level men.

Sexual harassment of all types was somewhat less frequent when it was

analyzed for lower level men with 41% of the women reporting gender

harassment by men at this level and 14% reporting unwanted sexual

attention. Sexual coercion was a relatively rare occurrence regardless

of which level of perpetrator we examined.

It should be noted that there were some differences in the

specific types of behaviours reported. For example, men at a higher

level were more likely to imply faster promotions or better treatment

on the job than were lower level men simply because they have the

leverage to enforce that kind of promise whereas, lower level men do

not. What is interesting, though, is that the frequency of different

types of sexual harassment (e-g.,gender harassment, unwanted sexual

attention, sexual coercion) seemed to be relatively consistent across

sources (especially across higher level and equal level men). However,

the circumstances surrounding sexual harassment and the outcomes

relating to it were remarkably different in many important respects

depending on the relative level of the perpetrator and the

characteristics of the targets.

Models of Sexual Harassment

Sexual Harassment by U e r Level Men

Two very interesting pictures of gender harassment by higher

level men emerged £rom the canonical analysis. In the first case, we

had a picture of very highly educated women who worked in male-

dominated departments or woxk-units and who possessed negative

perceptions of their organization's response to (and sanctions against)

sexual harassment. Under such conditions, gender harassment tended to

be associated with increased work-related negative mood, increased

perceptions of stress, decreased satisfaction with their supervisors,

and increased intentions to leave the organization.

In the context of our study, one could argue that this group

represents female faculty and perhaps also professional/rnanagerial

women. The female faculty, for example, could be working in

traditionally male-dorninated fields. They might Se subjected to

comrnents that women are not well-suited to careers in science, for

example, or they might be treated less well in other ways simply

because they axe women.

 Younger wornen (i.e., those 35 years and under) were rnost

vulnerable under these conditions but other women were affected as

well: those aged 45 to 49 were also a vulnerable group. In the

context of previous semial harassrnent studies that have found younger

women to be the more frequent targets of sexual harassrnent (e.g., Lach

& ~wartney-Gibbs,1993), the vulnerability of the 4 5 to 49 age group

was somewhat surprising. However, the susceptibility to harassment of

this group in the current analysis may not be related solely to gender

but to issues surrounding ageism as well. Indeed, there is evidence

that ageism is a fairly common prejudice in our society (Kimmel, 1988)

and that a double standard exists whereby the aging of men is viewed

much more positively than the aging of women (Unger & Crawford, 1992).

Arguably, gender harassment and ageism are not mutually exclusive

but rather are interrelated forms of discrimination. Women in their

late forties and early fifties are generally at a time in their lives

when they begin to show visible signs of aging (e.g., wrinkling of the

skin, graying hair). This image contrasts sharply with the picture of

the ideal woman's face in our society, a face that is supposed to

remain unblemished and child-like (Sontag, 1979); not to mention the

accompanying pervasive sexist belief that women are only valuable when

they are attractive and useful to men (Healey, 1986). Indeed, Unger

and Crawford (1992) argue that women as a class have a lower status

than men and that the difference persists as women and men grow older

and may even increase.

Studies of gender and ageism provide interesting parallels to

sexual harassment, and gender harassment in particular. For example,

in a study of jokes about old people, Palmore (1971) found that there

were three times as many negative jokes about old wonen as about old

men. One specific example of gender harassing behaviour in the sexual

harassment literature is the habitua1 telling of sexist or offensive

jokes (e-g.,Fitzgerald, et al., 1988). Therefore, discrimination

based on age may have contributed to the gender harassment that women

in the 45 to 49 years age group experienced in oux study. Based on our

findings, it seerns limiting to conclude that younger women are

necessarily more vulnerable to sexual harassment, especially in terms

of gender harassment. That is, because they are perceived as more

attractive, younger women may be subject to more unwanted sexual

attention (e.g., propositions, persistent requests for dates) but it

seems that women of al1 ages are vulnerable to experiences of gender

harassment.

The interrelationships dernonstrated in this analysis also support

the notion that simply having a sexual harassrnent policy in place (the

university in Our study did have a policy in place) is not enough to

prevent sexually harassing behaviours, particularly gender harassment.

Consistent with previous research (e.g., Dekker & Barling, in press;

also see Riger, 19911, the pattern of results in this analysis suggests

that it is not only the presence of a harassment policy that is

important. Rather, it is also the perceptions of the organizationts

willingness to stand behind the policy that has an effect on s e m a 1

harassment.

However, it has also been argued that sexual harassment polices

and grievance procedures alone are not sufficient to insure that sexual

harassment will be eliminated; an end to the problem requires gender

equity within organizations (Riger, 1991). The presence of a good

formal policy would likely result in decreased incidents of blatant

behaviours. After all, men and women tend to agree that certain

blatant behaviours, such as sexual assault or sexual bribery,

constitute harassrnent (USMSPB, 1981). Because such behaviour is

apparently more salient and explicit, the presence of a policy would

presumably inhibit its occurrence both because the men recognize it as

harassment themselves and because they may fear reprisal for engaging

in it.

However, there is considerably more disagreement between men and

women about whether the more subtle gender harassing behaviours, such

as jokes or leers constitute harassment (Kenig & Ryan, 1986; USMSPB,

1981). When men engage in these less obvious forms of harassrnent they

may not even perceive that their behaviours are harassment. Further,

women may be less inclined to pursue complaints either on the basis

that they think such behaviours are normative or because they do not

think they will be taken seriously thus allowing the gender harassrnent

to continue.

The university in our study had a charly defined sexual

harassment policy and an office in place to handle complaints. Thus, a

very small amount of sexual coercion was reported by those we surveyed.

However, gender harassrnent was a fairly comrnon occurrence for the women

in our study. Further, in this analysis, gender harassment was

associated with negative attitudes towards the university's response to

and sanctions against sexual harassment. Gender harassment, because it

is subtle and often insidiously embedded in sexist stereotypes and

organizational noms, is arguably just as damaging to women in

organizations as more severe f o m s of harassment, So, while formal

policies may be quite effective in reducing incidents of blatant sexual

harassment, their relationship to the presence of gender harassment is

somewhat more complex.

Consider the following hypothetical scenario. A university has a

good semial harassment policy in place and it enforces it; that is,

complaints are taken seriously and al1 parties are treated fairly.
There are women faculty at the university working in male-dominated

departments such as engineering, for example. The women often hear

comments that women are too emotional to be scientists or to assume

leadership roles. The absence of women in these sorts of roles and

positions only serves to reinforce the stereotypic idea, both to men

and women, that such comntents may actually have some validity. How can

a policy and complaint procedure, albeit created in good faith, stand

up against a culture that devalues women and systematically reinforces

negative stereotypes?

Combating sexual harassment requires a system-wide approach

wherein women need to be encouraged and given the opportunity to move

into traditionally male fields in order that they may be allowed to

demonstrate their abilities. The main point is that the presence of

strong forma1 policies is a positive step but they should be

complemented by environments that demonstrate a firm comrnitment to

equal employment opportunity and an organizational cornmitment to

respecting the value of women in general in order to be effective.

It appears that the women in the faculty and

professional/managerial groups experienced a wide range of negative

outcomes related to their experiences of gender harassment. The many

negative effects ( i . e . , increased work-related negative mood, increased

perceptions of stress, decreased satisfaction with supervisors, and

increased intentions to leave the organization) to emerge in this group

were particularly surprising given that gender harassment is generally

considered to be a less severe type of harassment (e.g., Till, 1980).

By extension, one could hypothesize that more 'severen types of

behaviours perpetrated by higher level men might lead to even more

serious consequences.
 It is interesting to contrast the pattern of results for the

previous group of women with the second picture that emerged from the

canonical analysis of harassment by higher level men. In the second

case, we found that gender harassment was experienced by women with

lower education and lower incomes working in environments with a high

proportion of fernale coworkers. These characteristics were likely

proxy characteristics for women who worked in predominantly female

occupations such as clerical or secretarial staff. Under these

conditions, only a decrease in work satisfaction emerged as an outcome

of gender harassment.

Perhaps these women were more apt to view sexual harassment as

normative since they did not seem to react as negatively to it as did

the previous group. When exposed to gender harassment at work these

women seem more likely to attribute their dissatisfaction to the work

itself. Further, that their perceptions of the organizationls

harassment policy did not seem to be that important may also suggest

that they consider such behaviours to be normative.

It is interesting that this group of women (clerical/secretarial)

tended to associate gendex harassment and decreased satisfaction with

work itself whereas the previous group of women (faculty and

professional/managerial) did not. Upon consideration, this finding is

not al1 that surprising given that the female faculty and

professional/managerial wornen were very highly educated and thus had

most likely put a lot of hard work and effort into their respective

areas of interest and expertise. The amount of time and commitment it

takes to become a faculty member, for example, is somewhat indicative

of satisfaction with the work itself. The two dimensions that emerged

from the canonical analysis of sexual harassment by higher level men

were informative because they showed that the interrelationship of

contributors and outcomes is dependent not only on the source of the

harassment (e-g.,someone at a higher level) but also on the persona1

characteristics of the targets as well.

1 IlevelMen

The interrelationships that resulted £rom Our analysis of equal

level men were a bit more difficult to disentangle given that two types

of harassrnent (gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention) emerged

on the same canonical dimension. In this analysis, higher levels of

gender harassment and unwanted sexual attention tended to be associated

with younger women who were more highly educated in environments with a

higher proportion of male coworkers and a higher opportunity to

interact with males at the same level. Thus, our findings are

consistent with Gutek (1985) who found that coworker harassrnent is more

prevalent in male-dominated workgroups where there is extensive contact

between men and women.

In t e m s of income, women in the second highest income bracket

reported in the study were most vulnerable while the next most

vulnerable group was women in the lowest income bracket. A plausible

explanation is that those lower in the organizational structure (e.g.,

those with lower incomes) are the ones being propositioned most often

by their male coworkers (i-e.,receiving unwanted sexual attention,

asked for dates, etc.) while those with higher incomes are the ones

being subjected to gender harassment by male coworkers. Previous

research has shown that male coworkers may be hostile toward women who

challenge or compete with them for jobs (Carothers & Crull, 1984).

Because competition for jobs is likely to be more intense at higher

levels in the organization, women at higher levels would seem to be

more likely to experience hostility in the form of gender harassment

than would women at lower levels.

 Arguably, however, the important point to note about the analysis

of sexual harassment by equal level men is that none of the outcome

variables tested in our study were found to emerge as important; that

is, none of the outcome variables met the cut-off for interpretation.

Two variables approached the cut-off, however, and should be mentioned.

Gendex harassrnent and unwanted sexual attention by equal level men were

somewhat associated with higher levels of perceived stress and

increased intentions to leave one's job.

Sec bvZlowerevel
Men

In terms of sexual harassment by lower level men relative to

fernale targets there were some interesting findings. Gender harassment

by men at a lower level tended to be associated with younger women

(although those aged 50 to 55 were vulnerable as well), having higher

incomes in environments where there was a higher proportion of male

coworkers and a higher opportunity to interact with males at a lower

level. Women with a higher education especially technical training or

post-graduate degrees (or professional designations) tended to be most

vulnerable.

The picture one gets £rom the analysis of sexual harassrnent by

lower level men is one that makes intuitive sense. In this case, this

pattern of interxelationships could explain the gender harassment of

female faculty members by male students in traditionally male-dominated

fields. These women are surrounded by male faculty members and most of

their students would likely be men as well. So, not only is there

increased opportunity to be harassed by lower level males (because

there are so many around) but their gendex is also likely to be

highlighted since when the male students look around their department
at the faculty they see mostly male faces.
 Similarly, such a pattern of results could explain the gender

harassrnent experienced by women in technical fields. Some technical

work has traditionally been male-dominated. Thus, the same kinds of

issues facing fernale faculty members could be facing female technical

workers in their work environments as well.

What is interesting aitout Our analysis of sexual harassment by

lower level men is that none of the outcome variables we examined

emerged as important. Furthex, none of them really approached our cut-

off for interpretation. This suggests that gender harassment by lower

level men, while likely annoying at the time it is happening, does not

seem to have long-lasting negative consequences for the target. It is

perhaps perceived as simply less threatening because men at lower

levels do not, by virtue of the relationship, hold much forma1 power

over the women they harass. However, it must be conceded that there

conceivably might be negative consequences associated with harassment

by lower level men that were not included in our study.

. .
Com~arinathe Flndinas

In comparing sexual harassment perpetrated by each of the three

levels of men relative to female targets some cornpelling findings

result. For example, the outcomes of sexual harassment tended to be

quite dependent on the source of the harassment. Sexual harassment by

men at higher levels had substantially more negative consequences in

this study than sexual harassment by equal level or lower level men.

While the outcomes of sexual harassment by equal level men did not meet

Our cut-off for interpretation, two of the outcomes (e-g.,perceived

stress, turnover intentions) approached the cut-off leading us to

believe that perhaps harassment by equal level men has more of a

negative effect than harassment by lower level men. Therefore, it

seems that the more formal power harassers hold over their targets, the

more likely the targets are to experience negative effects.

Another interesting finding surrounds the issue of opportunity

for interaction with different levels of men. In the analyses of

harassment by equal and lower level men, the opportunity to interact

with men of equal and lower levels (respectively) emerged as an

important variable in relation to sexual harassment. This makes

intuitive sense: if you have a lot of opportunity to be around a

particular group of men, you also have an increased opportunity to be

harassed by them. Conversely, if you do not come into contact with

many men, the opportunity for harassment simply is not as great.

However, in the analysis of sexual harassment by higher level

men, the opportunity to interact with men at higher levels did not come

through as an important part of the relationship. Perhaps this

suggests that women do not have to have a lot of interaction with

higher level men in order for the harassment to have an effect. It

seems, thexefore, that because higher level men have more power, theix

attitudes and behaviour can set a tone in the workplace and can have

long-lasting effects even in their absence.

Altexnate Forms of Harassment

"Why are you only testing the sexual harassment of women by men?

Could 1 not be sexually harassed by another woman?" Questions and

comments of tbis nature frequently appeaxed anecdotally on returned

questionnaires. Such comments raise a valid point which should be

addressed.

A deliberate decision was made on the part of the researchex to

only examine sexual harassment that was perpetrated on women by men and

not to examine sexual harassment of other forms (e.g., men on men,

women on women, women on men). People may be harassed, or treated

differently, at work for a multitude of different reasons such as their

sexual orientation, their weight, their race, or any other identifiable

characteristic. Although we emphatically acknowledge that such

harassment exists and that it merits investigation, the decision to

limit the current study to men on women sexual harassment was made for

two important reasons.

First, previous research has demonstrated that women are most

often the victims of s e m a 1 harassment and that men are most often the

perpetrators ( e . g . , USMSPB, 1981). So, while we feel that other types

of workplace harassment are certainly interesting and should be

examined, we decided to focus on the particular aspect of sexual

harassment that we wished to clarify. Indeed, considering the

complexity of s e m a l harassment, the dynamics that occur between men

and women on the job are likely quite dif£erent for many reasons than

those that occur between women, for example.

Second, the SEQ (Fitzgerald, et al., 1988) was selected to assess

frequency for the present study because it is one of the few sexual

harassment instruments that is generally regarded to be

psychometrically strong (Arvey & Cavanaugh, 1995). We chose to heed

the cautions of the SEQ authors when they stated that the SEQ "is

designed to assess harassment directed at women by men; although it is

possible to change the directions to assess the fxequency of similar

behaviour directed at men (either by women or men) and some researchers

have done sa, we emphasize that the meaning and impact of such

situations is largely unknown. We do not believe that it is

appropriate to label such interchanges as 'sexual harassment1 until

much more research has been done on this topic" (Fitzgerald, Drasgow, &

Gelfand, 1993, p. 4). Therefore, in Our study a decision was made not

only to use the SEQ, but also to use the SEQ as it was intended.
 Limitations

The limitations of the present study must be acknowledged. The

main limitation relates to the low base-rate of sexual coercion

reported in our study and the resulting lack of variability in this

type of harassment. Thus, Our results centered primarily on gender

harassment and to a lesser extent on unwanted sexual attention- That

so little sexual coercion was reported, while encouraging from a social

standpoint, made it unfeasible to incorporate this important type of

harassrnent into our model.

Based on previous findings, we were prepared for the possibility

that we might obtain a low-base rate for sexual coercion. Indeed, as

Fitzgerald, Gelfand, and Drasgow (1995) point out, it is cleax by now

that sexual coercion in the workplace is a relatively infrequent event

compared to other forms of sexual harassment. They also point out that

this situation presents no practical problem for conducting incidence

studies with the SEQ. However, it did create difficulties in

atternpting to apply the SEQ to the formulation of our model of sexual

harassment especially since the women in Our study reported even less

sexual coercion than has been reported in previous research (e.g.,

Fitzgerald, et al., 1988) .

It might be useful to run Our analyses again but instead of

differentiating in terms of the source of the harassment (i.e., in

terms of higher, equal, and lower level men) it may be desirable to run

the analyses once for each type of harassment. Although we were able

to gain some insight into how different levels of perpetrators affect

the relationship between various contributors and outcomes, it would be

useful to more clearly see how the various types of harassment fit into

these relationships as well. That is, it would be beneficial to

differentiate more clearly between gender harassment and unwanted

sexual attention. However, it should be noted that an examination of

the relatively high intercorrelations between gender harassment and

unwanted sexual attention obtained in this study suggests that

workplaces with reported incidents of one type of harassment (e.g.,

gender harassment) tend to be associated with increased incidents of

other types of harassment as well (unwanted semial attention).

J,ow Overall Resnonse Rate

Certain conditions combined to result in a relatively low overall

response rate (24%). This research project was conducted as part of a

Master's thesis that had to be completed by a predetermined date. This

time limitation resulted in an inability to distribute follow-up

mailings or reminders and to further encourage participation. Further,

the surveys were mailed out during the spring/summer semester of the

school year. Typically, this is when many people take their holidays

since there are far fewer students around during the summer and there

are far fewer classes. It is possible, therefore, that many surveys

are still sitting in mailboxes to this day. In fact, surveys and

inquiries still continue to be received.

It should be noted, however, that there were differential

response rates for different groups in the study. The response rates

ranged from as high as 39% for faculty and 26% for

professional/managerial women to as low as 17% for university staff.

This pattern of results is what one might expect in a study of this

type given that a consistent bias in mail surveys is that better-

educated people usually send back mail questionnaires more quickly than

those with less education (Fowler, 1993). Further, because the

professors and professional/managerial women in the present study were

likely more thoroughly schooled in the issues surrounding sexual

harassment and its consequences (Dekker & Barling, in press) they may

have felt more comfortable filling out a survey regarding this topic-

While the low overall response rate arguably does not affect the

interna1 validity of this study, it may inhibit its generalizability

for particular groups, especially university staff.

PotentiaJ S a m D l i n n ~ i a s
People who have a particular interest in the subject matter are

more likely to return mail questionnaires than those who are less

interested in the topic (Fowler, 1993). Therefore, a logical inference

would be that those who have been sexually harassed may have been more

willing to respond to the current survey than those who have not (for

example, as happened in the Pedbook survey). Therefore, sampling bias

in favour of those who have been harassed may have been a problem in

the current study.

However, £rom examining the data, it seems unlikely that this

form of sarnpling bias was much of a problern. In fact, the prevalence

of sexual harassment in the current study was comparable to that

obtained in previous research (e-g.,Fitzgerald, et al., 1988; Gutek,

1985). Moreover, the women we surveyed reported substantially fewer

sexually coercive types of behaviours than have previously been

reported. For example, while only about 2% of Our respondents reported

being subtly or directly bribed to be sexually cooperative, over 13% of

the women surveyed in a similar study reported such behaviour

(Fitzgerald, et al., 1988) .

Strono Reliance on American Data

Our research surveyed women working in a rnid-sized Canadian

university while most of the data reported in the literature review

relied heavily on American data. It should be acknowledged that the

results obtained in this study might not be directly comparable to

those obtained by American researchers. The policies and context

(e.g., governmentally and organizationally) surrounding sexual

harassment in the United States and Canada may diffex somewhat.

Future Directions

tniction of Com~rehensiveModeh

Admittedly, research on sexual harassment is a relatively new

area; however, research does not seem to be developing and evolving as

quickly as it should especially given preliminary data suggesting that

sexual harassment is a pervasive and costly social problem. We now

need to concentrate more on the more complex, and arguably more useful,

realms of theory building and testing in order ta understand how the

process of semial harassment develops and progresses in organizations.

It should be noted that our study was clearly exploratory in nature.

We suggest that future investigations continue to pursue the fuxther

integration of findings and attempts at mode1 building. Eventually,

research could then move toward more confirmatory types of analyses and

structural models.

M~lodels Tncornoratins Raual Em~iovmentOp~ortunitv

Many of the women in the present study spoke anecdotally, through

cornments written on the questionnaires, about the presence of a "glass

ceiling" in their workplaces and a sense that women's work was

undervalued relative to men's. Glass ceiling is a concept popularized

in the 1980s to describe a barrier so subtle that it is transparent,

yet so stxong that it prevents women and minorities from moving up in

the organizational hierarchy (Morrison & Von Glinow, 1990). Although

it was not directly tested in the present study, future comprehensive

models of sexual haxassment should include the role of perceived equal

employment opportunity for women in the organization. Indeed, in

previous research, a strong negative relationship has been found to

exist between the level of perceived equal employment opportunity for

women in an organization and the level of harassment reported

(LaFontaine & Tredeau, 1986).

This relationship makes intuitive sense as well since sexual

harassment is arguably a form of gender-based discrimination. It has

been argued that the most important factor in reducing sexual

harassment is an organizational climate that promotes equal opportunity

for women; to solve the problem of sexual harassment requires a long

range approach that attacks both sex segregation of occupations and sex

stratification within authority hierarchies (Riger, 1991). Therefore,

how perceptions of equal opportunity fit into models of the process of

sexual harassment needs to be more fully explored.

. . . .
Identification/Clarlflcation of Organizatio& ~ u t c w

Clearly, through a more comprehensive understanding of how

different types of harassment manifest and under which conditions they

develop, organizations may be equipped with the knowledge necessary to

effectively combat this problem. Identifying and clarifying the

negative organizational outcomes associated with various kinds of

harassment may provide organizations the necessary motivation to design

effective intervention strategies. That is, educating employers that

sema1 harassment is a costly organizational concern which affects the

"bottom-line" may provide the incentive needed to take the problem

seriously and tackle it accordingly. The advancement of theoretical

explanations of sexual harassment will provide the necessary

foundations upon which sound interventions to prevent sexual harassment

can be based.

The Larger Context

Sexual harassment does not exist in a vacuum. The sexual

harassment of women by men arguably exists as part of a larger societal

culture that tends to value men over women in general. Based on this

assumption, we could just throw up Our hands as organizational

psychologists and concede that sexual harassment will continue to exist

in organizations until North American society undergoes massive

attitudinal change in how it regards women. However, how we should

proceed given the societal constraints depends fargely on Our own

philosophies as psychologists.

We prefer to believe that organizations can actually be

instrumental in initiating larger societal change. That is, instead of

waiting for society to change and then taking action, organizations can

begin to rnake the changes necessary to eradicate sexual harassrnent in

their own workplaces. As the career potential of women is allowed to

be realized in individual organizations and they corne to be viewed as

productive participants in the workforce they can then corne to be

embraced as valuable by the larger society. Sexual harassrnent, as a

workplace hazard that irnpedes the career development of women, is an

important research issue that must be regarded as such. Steps that are

taken to understand, and subsequently elirninate, sexual harassrnent are

steps that will benefit us al1 in the larger context.

 FERENCES

Aggarwal, A. P. (1994). Legal obligations of employers and

unions to protect employees from semial harassment. In L. Geller-

Schwartz (Ed.), From awareness to action (pp. 63-71). Government of

Canada.

Arvey, R. D., & Cavanaugh, M. A. (1995). Using surveys to

assess the prevalence sexual harassment: Some methodological problems.

Journal of Social Issires. 39-52.

Barak, A. (1994). A cognitive-behavioral educational workshop

to combat sexual harassment in the workplace. J o u m of Counseling

d Devcio~ment.72. 79-82.

Barling, J., Dekker, I., Loughlin, C. A., Kelloway, E. K.,

E'ullagar, C., & Johnson, D. (1996). Prediction and replication of the

organizational and persona1 consequences of workplace sexual

harassment. Journal of m a q e r i a l Psvcholocnr. 11. 3-22.

Benson, D. J., & Thomson, G. E. (1982). Sexual harassment on a

university campus: The confluence of authority relations, s e m a 1

interest, and gender stratification. Social Problems. 29. 236-251.

Benson, K. (1984). Comment on Crockerts An analysis of

university definitions of sexual harassment, Sicms. 9. 377-397.

Betz, N. E., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1987). The career ~svcholocrv

of women. New York: Academic Press.

Breast groped, secretary gets $7.1 million. (1994, September 2 ) .

Globe & Mail. p. All.

Brewer, M. (1982). Further beyond nine to five: An integration

and future directions. Journal of Social Issues. 38. 149-157.

 Carothers, S. C., & Crull, P. (1984). Contrasting sexual

harassrnent in female- and male-dominated occupations. In K. B. Sacks

and D. Remy (Eds.), MY troubles are gnins to have trouble with me:

s and triiamphs of women workerq (pp. 219-227). New

Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press.

Chemers, M. M., Hays, R. B., Rhodewalt, F I , & Wysocki, J.

(1985). A person-environment analysis of job stress: A contingency

mode1 explanation. Journal of P e r s u t v _(and Social Psvcholocrv. 49.

628-635.

Cleveland, J. N. (1994). Women and sexual harassment: Work and

well-being in US organizations. In M. J. Davidson and R. J. Burke

(Eds. ) , m e n in m u g e m e = (pp. 168 - 191) . London: Paul Chapman

Publishers,

Cleveland, J. N., & Kerst, M. E. (1993). Sexual harassrnent and

perceptions of power: An under-articulated relationship. Journal of

Vocational Behavior. 42, 49-67.

Cohen, S., Karnarck, T., & Mermelstein, R. (1983). A global

measure of perceived stress. Journal of Health _and Social Behavior.

& 385-396.

Coles, F. S. (1986). Forced to quit: Sexual harassrnent

cornplaints and agency response. Sex Roles. 14. 81-95.

Crull, P. (1982). Stress effects of sexual harassment on the

job: Implications for counseling. S

Orthopsvcuatrv. 52. 539-544.

Dekker, I., & Barling, J. (in press) . Persona1 and

organizational predictors of workplace sexual harassment of wornen by

males. Journal of O c c m Health psycholpqv.

--
 DiTomaso, N. (1989). Sexuality in the workplace:

Discrimination and harassment. In J. Hearn, D. L. Sheppard, P.

Tancred-Sheriff, and G. Burrell (Eds.), T

& se&i-ofzatioq

(pp. 71-90). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ellis, S., Barak, A . , & Pinto, A . (1991). Modexating effects of

personal cognitions on experienced and perceived semal harassment of

women at the workplace. J o u m of -lied Social Psycholocrv. 21.

1320-1337.

Falardeau-Ramsay, M. (1994). When "no" isnlt enough: Sexual

harassment and the Canadian Human Rights Act. In L. Geller-Schwartz

(Ed,), From awareness to action (pp. 45-50). Government of Canada.

Faley, R. (1982). Sexual harassment: Critical review of legal

cases with general principles and preventative measures. Perso&

Ps~&o~ow. 35. 583-595.

Farley, L. (1978). Sexual shakedown: The sexual harassment of

-n on the ioh. New York: Warner Books.

Fiedler, F. E., Potter, E. H., Zais, M. M., & Knowlton, W. A.

(1979). Organizational stress and the use and misuse of managerial

intelligence and experience. Journal of A~gliedPsvcholocrv, 64. 635-

647.

Fitzgerald, L. F. (1993). Sexual harassment: Violence against

women in the workplace. merjcan Psvcholosist. 48, 1070-1076.

Fitzgerald, L. F. (1996). The prevalence of s e m a 1 harassment.

In B. Lott and M. E. Reilly (Eds.),m a t i n s se& harassment

er education. ( p p . 55-68). Washington, DC: National Education

Association.

Fitzgerald, L. F., Drasgow, F., & Gelfand, M. (1993). Sexual

eriewes Ouest omaJre. Form W. ~npublishedresearch scale,

Department of Psychology, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign.

 Fitzgerald, L. F., Gelfand, M. J., & Drasgow, F I (1995).

Measuring sexual harassment: Theoretical and psychometric advances.

c and A m l i e d Social Ps cholocw, 17,

Fitzgerald, L. F., Hulin, C. L., & Drasgow, F. (1992, Novernber).

- outcornes of sexuai harassment:

a An n w a t e d process model.

Paper presented to the 2"* APA/NIOSH Conference on Stress and the

Workplace. Washington, DC.

Fitzgerald, L. F., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment:

A research analysis and agenda for the 1990s. Journal of Vocat ional

Behavior. 42. 5-27.

Fitzgerald, L., Shullman, S., Bailey, N., Richards, M., Swecker,

J., Gold, Y., Ormerod, M., & Weitzman, L. (1988). The incidence and

dimensions sexual harassment in acadernia and the workplace. Journal.

Vocati 152-175.

Gelfand, M. J., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1995). The

structure of sexual harassment: A confirmatory analysis across

cultures and settings. Journal of Vocational Behavior. 47, 164-177.

Fowler, F. J. , Jr. (1993 . Survev research methods , Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Glaser, R. D., & Thorpe, 3. S. (1986). Unethical intimacy: A

survey of sexual contact and advances between psychology educators and

fernale graduate students. American Psvcholouist, 41. 43-51.

Graverholz, E. (1989). S e m a 1 harassment of women prof essors by

students: Exploring the dynarnics of power, authority, and gender in a

university setting. Sex Roles. 21. 789-801.

Gruber, J. E., & Bjorn, L. (1986). Women's responses to sexual

harassment: An analysis of sociocultural, organizational, and persona1

resource models. Social S c S 814-826.

 Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the w o r m a c e . San Francisco:

Jossey-Bass.

Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. P. (1993). Changed women and changed

organizations: Consequences of and coping with sexual harassment.

onal Rehavior. 42, 28-48.

Healey, S. (1986). Growing to be an old woman: Aging and

ageism. In J. Alexander, D. Berrow, L. Domitrovich, M. Donnelly, & C-

McLean (Eds. ) , Women and_asins (pp. 58-62]. Corvallis, OR: Calyx-

Kahn, R. L., & Byosiere, P. (1992). Stress in organizations.

In M. D. Dunnette and L. M. Hough (Eds.) pandbook of I n d u s b a l &

Psycholoc~~.(2"d Ed., Volume 3) . Pa10 Alto, CA:

Consulting Psychologists Press.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). n
ad- of the coq.gration. New

York: Basic Books.

Kenig, S., & Ryan, J. (1986). Sex dif ferences in levels of

tolerance and attribution of blame for sexual harassment on a

university campus. Sex Reles. 15. 535-549.

Kilpatrick, D. G. (1992, June) . Txeatment and counseling needs

of women veterans who were raped, otherwise sexually assaulted, or

sexually harassed during military service. Test-nv before the S e n a t e

e r s ç
A
r
a
.f
if

Kimmel, D. C. (1988). Ageism, psychology, and public policy.

St. 43. 175-178.

Kirk, D. (1988, August). Çender d i f f e r e n c d the ~erceotion

of s e m a 1 harassment. Paper presented at the Academy of Management

National Meeting, Anaheim, CA.

Konrad, A. M., & Gutek, B. A. (1986). Impact of work

experiences on attitudes toward semial harassment. . .

Admlniçtratjve

422-438.
 Lach, D. H., & Gwartney-Gibbs, P. A. (1993). Sociological

perspectives on s e m a 1 harassrnent and workplace dispute resolution.

Jouxnal 102-115.
LaFontaine, E., & Tredeau, L. (1986). The frequency, sources,

and correlates of sexual harassment among women in traditional male

occupations. *x Roles. 15. 433-442.

Livingston, J. A. (1982). Responses to sexual harassrnent on the

job: Legal, organizational, and individual actions. J o u q a l of Socjal

Issues. 38. 5-22.

Martindale, M.
. .
(1990). Sexual harassment in the r n l l i t a ~

3988. Arlington, VA: Defense Manpower Data Center.

Middlerniss, J. (1994, July 12). Sexual harassment casting

millions. -cial Post Dailv, p . 10.

Morrison, A. M., & Von Glinow, M. A. (1990). Women and

minorities in management. merican Psvcholosist. 45. 200-208.

Morrow, P. C., McElroy, J. C., & Phillips, C. M. (1994). Sexual

harassrnent behaviors and work-related perceptions and attitudes.

Journal of Vocati_onal Behavior. 45, 295-309.

Nicholson, N - , & West, M. (1988). Manaserial job chanse: Men

. .
and women in t r w l t l o n . New York: Cambridge University Press.

Nowlis, V. (1965). Research with the mood adjective checklist .

In S. S. Tompkins and C. E. Izard (Eds.), Aff9ct. -OC

. .
personalitv. New York: Springer.

Palmore, E. (1971). Attitudes toward aging as shown by humor.

toloaist. 31. 181-186.

Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassrnent proclivities in men.

Sex Roles, 17. 269-290.

Ridgeway, C. L. (Ed.). (1992). Çender jnteractjon a

itv. New York: Springer Verlag.
 Riger, S. (1991). Gender dilemmas in sexual harassment policies

and procedures. American P s v ~ l o u i s t .46, 497-505.

Rosin, H. M., & Korabik, K. (1991). Workplace variables,

affective responses, and intention to leave among women managers.

J o m a l of Occu~ational Psvchologv. 6 4 < 1-14.

Safran, C. (1976, March) . Sexual harassment: The view from the

top. Eedbook, 46-51.

Smith, P. C., Kendall, L. M., & Hulin, C. L. (1969). %

%Chicago: Rand-

McNal ly .

Sontag, S. (1979)- The double standard of aging. In J. H.

Williams (Ed.), psvchologv of women: Seïected r e a w (pp. 462-478).

New York: Norton.

Spence, J. T., Helmreich, R. L., & Pred, R. S. (1987).

Impatience versus achievement strivings in the Type A pattern:

Differentiaf effects on students' health and academic performance.

ed PSV&O~OW. 72, 522-528.

Tangri, S. S., Burt, M. R., & Johnson, L. B. (1982). Sexual

harassment at work: Three explanatory models. Journal of S o c i d

Jssues. 38. 33-54.

Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1986). A framework for the

study of sexual harassment. Basic and ~ s v c h ~ o c r v7.

.

17-34.

Till, F. (1980). Sexual harassment: A renort on the s a

ssment of students. Washington, DC: National Advisory Council on

Wornen's Educational Prograrns.

Unger, R., & Crawford, M. (1992). :r- .

A f e m.m i s t

psvcholosv. New York: McGraw-Hill.

 United States Department of Labor. (1991). A renort on the
. . . . . .
s c e l l & m t l a t ~ v e .Washington, DC: US Governrnent Printing

Office.

United States Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). SexuaL

harassrnent in the f~deralworblace: 1s it a groblem? Washington,

D.C.: United States Governrnent Printing Office.

United States Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). Sexual

t: An u~date. Washington, D.C.:

United States Governrnent Printing Office.

Verdegaal, R. (1986). PVERALS. University of Leiden:

Department of Data Theory.

 Appendix A

Cover L e t t e r
Dear Participant,

I am a Master's student in the Department of Psychology at the University of Guelph

who is conducting thesis researdi in the area of sexual harassment and the attitudes and general
w d - k i n g of working women. Sexual harassment is an issue of inaeasing concem to Canadian
organizations and institutes of higher learning. Through ik negative impact on work
environments, sexuai harassment is becoming recognized as a costIy workplace hazard on both a
persona1 and organizational level. Arguably, it is only through a more cornprehensive theoretical
understanding of the process of harassment that future interventions to prevent its occurrence
can be based. As such, the aim of this study is to develop a theoreticai mode1 of sexual
harassment in the workplace. This research is supported in principle by the Human Rights and
Equity Office of the University of Guelph. I am seeking your assistance by asking you to take 20-
25 minutes to fiU out the enclosed questionnaire. Yosir decision to pdcipate is q important to the
m a l 1 szlccess of the stiidy.

1 want to assure you that the responses that you provide on the questionnaire will be
completely anonymoiis. You will not be asked to idenûfy yourself on the questionnaire and the
number of people surveyed will be substantially large such that no individual could be identified
on the basis of her responses.

This survey package contairis: (1) a consent form; (2) a questiomaire booklet; and (3)a
debriefing form that provides you with information about this shidy. You will ais0 find two self-
addressed envelopes for you to use in returning the consent form and the questionnaire. Plense
follm the inshtictions belorv carefrilly in completing the srirvey:

STEP 1: Read the enclosed consent form carefuiIy as it contains important information about the
study and advises you of how your rights wiU be protected.

STEP 2: Sign the consent form.

STEP 3: Complete the questionnaire. Do ~ i aplace

t yozu rrnnre anywhere on the qzieshonnazre itselJ
Place it in the Iarge self-addressed enveIope and seai it ciosed.

STEP 4: Open the small envelope and read the enclosed debriefing form. If you would like to
receive a copy of the overaIl results of the study when it is compIeted, then please fiil out the
bottom portion of this form.

STEP 5: Place the consent form in the smaii envelope Wou may also submit your request for
o v e r d results in this envelope).

STEP 6: Deposit the two separate self-addressed envelopes into the campus mail.

1 realize that sexual harassment is a topic of a sensitive nahire. Therefore, this study waç
specifically designed in order to protect your anonymity (i.e., fhere will be no way to connect yori to
yozir responses). 1hope that you will decide to participate in this study. If you have any
additional questions or wodd like more information, pIease feel free to contact the project
director: Dr. Karen Korabik, Department of PsychoIogy, Ext. 3188.
Appendix B

Consent Form
 DECLAIUTION OF INFORMED CONSENT
Sexual Harassrnent Survev

Researcher: Colleen O'ComeiI, Department of Psychology

Project Director/ Advisor: Dr. Karen Korabik, Department of Psychology

1 give my informed consent to participate in this shidy of semai harassment in the workplace.

(a) 1 have been informed that the general purpose of this study is to contribute to an
understanding of semiai harassment in the workplace as weli as to assess the general work
attitudes and well-king of working women.

(b) 1have been informed that the responses I provide on the questionnaire wilI be completely
arionpous since 1 will not be asked to idenûfy myself on the questionnaire.

(c) 1 understand that although a record will be kept of my having participated in this study (in
the form of this consent letter), this record will be accessible o d y to the researcher and will be
kept strictiy confidentid. The responses 1 provide on the questionnaire will also be kept in
the strictest confidence and wiil not be accessible to anyone at the University including
myself.

(d) 1consent to publication of research resdts under the condition that the information is
completely anonymous and disguised such that no individual identification can be made.

(e) 1have been informed that all information wili be used in aggregate (group) form only and
that group sizes will be substantially large such that 1cannot be iden*ed on the basis of my
responses.

( f ) 1 understand that the data gathered in this study may be shared with other researchers in the
development of certain research instruments and may also be shared with the Human Rights
and Equity Office of the university. However, 1am assured that only group data will be
shared and that my anonymity will be protected.

(g) I have been informed that I may skip any question in the survey that I do not wish to answer.
(h) 1 have been informed that participation is voluntary and that 1 am free to withdraw from the
study at any tirne without penalty of any kind.

Concerns about any aspect of this study may be referred to Dr. Karen Korabik (ext. 3288),
Department of PsychoIogy, 5& Floor MacKinnon Hd,University of GueIph.

1, (please print name) have read the above consent form and agree to
participate.

(Signature) Pte)
 Appendix C

Questionnaire
 QUESTIONNAIRE
The information sought in this study is intended to contribute to a better understanding of
sexual harassment. More specifically, we are interested in the types of behaviours that you as
a female employee experience at the University of Guelph (ZJ of G) as well as your attitudes
toward semiai harassment and other sermal behaviours. AIso, there are more general questions
related to your work attitudes and well-being.

When completing the survey, please refer to the past 24 nionths (2 y e a d of your employment
at the U of G ( d e s s otherwise stated).

Some of the questions ask you to report not only whether certain events have occurred but
d s o the level of other people invoIved relative to your position at the university; that is,
certain questions açk you to specify whether people involved in a particular situation were at a
higher, Iower, or equal position relative to yourseif.
In general,
Higher lmel refers to someone with greater authority or status than yourself (e.g., a
supervisor)

Equal lmel refers to someone at approximately the same Ievel as yourself (e-g., a coworker
or peer)

Lower lmel refers to someone with less authority or status relative to yourself (e.g., a
subordinate).

Please tum the page to begitr ...

 PART A
This section asks questions about the types of behaviours you have
experienced as an employee of the U of G as well as more general
questions about your attitudes toward sexuaI harassrnent and male-
fernale relationships in general.

1. Using the s a l e beIow, DURING THE PAST 24 MONTHS at the U

of G have you ever been in a situation where any men who were at a
higher, equal, or lower level relative to you ...
-
(please circle a numberfor each lmel "higiter level" refm to a man or
men at a higher level relative to yuurselfi "'equal level" r@s to a man
or men a t approximately the same level as yourself; and "lower lmel"
refers tu a man or men at a lower level relative tu yourseli).

1= Never
2 = Once or twice
3 = Sometimes
4 = Often
5 = Most of the time

a. ..habi t u d y toId suggestivestories or offensive jokes?

Higher level 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level - 1 2 3 4 5
Lower l e v e r 1 2 3 4 5

b. ..made unwanted attempk to draw you into a discussion of

personal or sexual matiers (e-g.,attempted to discuss or cornment
on your sex Iife)?

Higher level 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level 1 2 3 4 5
L o w e r l e v e l 1 2 3 4 5

c. ..made crude and offensive sexual rernarks, either publicly (for

example, in the office), or to you privately?

Higher level , - - 1 2 3 4 5
Equal Ievel-.- - 1 2 3 4 5
Lower I e v e l - 1 2 3 4 5

d. ..treated you "differently" because you are a woman (e-g.,

mistreated, slighted, or ignored you)?

Higher level - 1 2 3 4 5
Equal Ievel -. 1 2 3 4 5
L o w e r I e v e u 1 2 3 4 5

e. ..gave you unwanted sexual attention?

Egher Ievel--- 1 2 3 4 5
EquaI level-- 1 2 3 4 5
Lower I e v e l - . . 1 2 3 4 5
f. ..dispiayed, used, or distributecl sexist or suggestive materials (e-g.,
pictures, stories, or pomography)?

Higher level 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level 1 2 3 4 5
L o w e r l e v e l 1 2 3 4 5

g. ..frequently made sexist remarks (e.g., suggesting that women are

too emotional to be scientists or to assume leadership roles)?

Higher Ievel 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level 1 2 3 4 5
Lower
....v
eiI 1 2 3 4 5

h. ..attempted to estabiish a romantic sexual relationship with you

despite your efforts to discourage him?

Higher leveld-- 1 2 3 4 5
EquaI Ievel - 1 2 3 4 5
Lower l e v e i - 1 2 3 4 5

i. .."put you down" or rvas condescending to you because of your

sex?

Higher level 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level 1 2 3 4 5
Lower IeveL 1 2 3 4 5

j. ..continued to ask you for dates, drinks, dinner, etc., even though
you have said "no"?

Higher level - 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level - 1 2 3 4 5
Lower ieveL. - 1 2 3 4 5

k. ..made you feel like you were k i n g subtly bribed with some sort of
reward or special treatment to engage in sexual behaviour?

Higher level .-, 1 2 3 4 5

E uI e v e . 1 2 3 4 5
LowerIevel--- 1 2 3 4 5

1. ..made you feel subtly threatened with some sort of retaliation for
not k i n g sexually cooperative (e.g., the mention of an upcoming
evalua tion, review, etc.)?

Higher I e v e l ~ , - 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level 1 2 3 4 5
Lower l e v e r 1 2 3 4 5
m. ..toucheci you (e-g., Iaid a hand on your bare arm, put an a m
around your shoulders) in a way that made you feel
uncondorta ble?

Higher Ievel 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level 1 2 3 4 5
Lower l e v e i 1 2 3 4 5

n. ..made unwanted attempts to sboke or fonde you (e-g., stroking

your Ieg or neck, touching your breast, etc.)?

Higher level - 1 2 3 4 5
Equai level -. 1 2 3 4 5
Lower l e v e i 1 2 3 4 5

o. ..made unwanted attempts to have sex with you that resulted in

you pleading, aying, or physically struggling?

Higher level 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level . 1 2 3 4 5
Lower I e v e L . 1 2 3 4 5

p. ..irnpried faster promotions or better treatment if you were sexualIy

cooperative?

Higher level 1 2 3 4 5
Equal level , 1 2 3 4 5
L o w e r l e v e i 1 2 3 4 5

q. ..made it necessary for you to respond positively to sexuai or social

invitations in order to be weil-treated on the job?

Higher level 1 2 3 4 5
Equd Ieve1,- 1 2 3 4 5
Lower l e v e L - 1 2 3 4 5

r. ..made you afraid you would be treated poorly if you didn't

cooperate sexualiy?

Higher IeveI - , . , . - . . 1 2 3 4 5
Equal Ievel -..-- , 1 2 3 4 5
L o w e r l e v e i---- - , ,, 1 2 3 4 5

S. ..treated you badly for refusing to have sex?

Higher level 1 2 3 4 5
Equal levelP- 1 2 3 4 5
Lower leveL--- 1 2 3 4 5
2. PIease rate your degree of agreement with each of the following
statements. (Pleuse n i d e the number that appliel.

a. Sexual harassrnent is a behaviour one has to iive with at the

workplace.

Absolutely Absolutely
Disagree *gr-

b. It is naturai for men in power positions to harass women.

Absolutely Absolutely
Disagree Ag-

c. Every sexual harasser at a workplace shouid be punished.

Absolutely Absolu tely

Disagree *gr=
3. PIease indicate your degree of agreement with each of the
following statements below using the followïng scale:

1 = Strongly disagree
2 = Disagree somewhat
3 = Neither agree nor disagree
4 = Agree somewhat
5 = SaongIy agree

The U of G takes semial harassment cornplaints very seriously.

At the U of G, no one reaiiy takes sexuai harassmentcompfaintç

very seriously, but they have to "investigate" hem anyway.

The U of G has been known to fire employees for sexual

harassment

The U of G has to have a sexual harassment grievance policy to

rnake the Iawyers happy, but it is pretty rnuch a joke among the
employees.

At the U of G, if you know who to talk to, you can get "off the
hook" when a sexual harassment compIaint is filed against you.

At the U of G, no one takes this sexual harassment stuff very

seriously.

Persons found gudty of sexual harassment a t the U of G would

probably be discipiined (e.g., by suspension and/or Ioss of
promo tionaI opportunities).

A l in au, the U of C has reaUy gone overboard in reacting to sema1

harassment talk in the media.

The CI of G is a safe campus for women employees.

4. PIease respond to the following using the =ale below.

1 = Never
2 = OccasionalIy
3 = Sometimes
4 = Frequently
5 = Always

1 have sexuai fantasies about people at work.

1 2 3 4 5

1 Iook for my sexual/social partners among my coworkers.

Outside of the workpiace, 1 socialize with my coworkers of both

sexes.

1 2 3 4 5

There is a lot of sexud activity going on between my coworkers.

1 2 3 4 5

Sexual teasing and horseplay is acceptabIe behaviour where 1 work

Where 1 work, dating between coworkers is strongly discourageci

by the management.

Where 1 work, women are mostly hired for their attractiveness.

Many of the women at work dress in a sexy way to attract male

attention.
5. Please indicate your degree of agreement with each of the
ZolIowing statements using the scale provideci.

1 = Saongly disagree
2 = Disagree
3 = Agree
4 = Strongly agree

"No" to sex can sometimes mean "Yes".

Respect and dignity are important components of a romantic

rela tionship.

The use of force for sexuai purposes is sometimes justified.

-- - -

1 2 3 4

The use of force for sexual purposes is iiiegal.

Mutual consent is a sign of a good sexual relationship.

Anyone has the right to change their mind about

whether or not to have sex.

Having sex when you don't reaiIy want to is a sign that you love
your partner.

Anyone who does not want to have sex should also not engage in
any p hysical involvement such as petting or kissing.

People are Iess responsible for their sexual behaviour if they are
under the influence of alcohol and dntgs.

6. Have you ever been sexuaIIy harassed? (Please circle the nurnber
that applies).

Yes .................................... 1
No ..................................... 2
 PARTB
The questions in this section ask for information about your curent
work context at the U of G.

1. Using the scaie below, pIease indicate the extent to which you have
had opportunities ...
(pleuse circle a numberfor each lewel)

Not at al1 To a large

extent

a. ..to be in the Company of men at a higher, equai, and/or lower level

relative to you.

Men at a higher level relative to you ... 1 2 3 4 5

Men at about the same level as you .... 1 2 3 4 5
Men at a Iower IeveI relative to you .... 1 2 3 4 5

b. ..to talk about mbjects related to work with..

Men at a higher level d a t i v e ta you ... 1 2 3 4 5

Men at about the same tevel as you .... 1 2 3 4 5
Men at a lower level rehtive to you .... 1 2 3 4 5

c. ..to establish social relations with men at a higher, lower, and/or

equaI ievel at your workplace.

Men at a higher level relative to you ... 1 2 3 4 5

Men at about the same level as you .... 1 2 3 4 5
Men a t a Iower level relative to you .... 1 2 3 4 5

2. 1s your immediate boss ...

Male ........................................... 1
Female ........................................ 2

3. 1s the coIIeague who has been most helpful to you in your present
job ...

Male ...................................... 1
FemaIe ................................... 2

4. How many of your immediate subordinates are malefiemale?

Number of males .............................

Number of females ..........................
Not applicable (No subordhates) ....... -
S. How many of your co-workers (Le., those at about the same Ievel as
you) are maXe/female?

Number of males .............................

Number of females ..........................
 .
6 With respect to your immediate work environment. please use the
scaie below to indicate the proportion of others in your department or
.
work unit who are male/femaie (Circle t h number t ht applies).

AU male ......................................... 1
Aimost all male ..................................... 2
Majority male ....................................... 3
Equai number male & female ................... 4
Majority female .....................................5
Almost al1 fernale ...................................6
Ali female ............................................ 7

PART C
This section asks you questions about your generai weii-being and
general work attitudes.

1. How often in the past 24 months have you felt ...

No t All of
at a11 the time

Clutchedup ....................... .... 1 2 3 4 5

Tense .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Elated .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Hostiie ................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Anxious ................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Relaxed .................................. 1 2 3 4 5

Sad ........................................ 1 2 3 4 5

Blue ....................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Happy .................................... 1 2 3 4 5

Short tempered ......................... 1 2 3 4 5

Upbeat .................................... 1 2 3 4 5
2 PIease answer the following questions based o n the PAST 24
month. Please c i d e the alternative that best describes your response
(A, Br Cr D,or E).

a. How frequently do you have difficdty getting to sleep at night?

A-B-C-D- E
ALmost ALmost
never always

b. How often do you typicaiiy wake up during the night?

A-BC-D- E
O times 4 or more
times

c . How often do you have nightmares or disturbing dreams?

A- B - C D - E
Almost Almost
never always

d . How rested do you usualIy feel w hen you wake up in the morning?

A-B-C-D- E
Fuiiy As tired as
rested when 1 went
to bed

e . How often is your sleep peaceful and undisturbed?

A-B-CD- E
AImost Almost
always never

f. OveraII, what kind of sleeper are you?

A-B-CD- E
Very good Very poor

g. How often have you experienced headaches?

A 8 C D E
Several About Several Several Almost
times a once times a times a never
week a week month year

h . How often have you experienced migraine or other severe

headaches?

A B C D E
Several About Several Several Almost
times a once times a times a never
week a week month year
i. During the faii, did you seem to be fighting cold symptoms
such as congestion, sneezing or coughing?

A - B C D - E
Almost hast
always never

j. Did you frequentiy get a headache when there was a lot of

pressure on you to get things done?

A-B-CD- E
ALmost Alrnost
aiways never

k. Did you hequentiy get a headache when you were annoyed

at someone or frustrated because things weren't going the
way they should have?

A-B-CD- E
Almost b o s t
alwa ys never

1. How many times have you caught minor colds?

(that is, made you uncornfortable but didn't
keep you sick in bed or make you miss work)

A-B-CD- E
O times 1 Lime 2 times 3 times 4 times

How many times have you had respiratory infections more severe
than minor col& that "lay you low" (such as bronchitis, sinusitis,
etc.)?

A-B-CD- E
1 time
O tirnes 2 times 3 times 4 times

When you have a bad coId or flu, how long does it typicaily Iast?

A-B-CD- E
24 hours 1-3 3-5 57 over
days days days 1wk

How frequently did you suffer from an upset stomach

(indigestion)?

A-B-C-D- E
h o st AImost
aiways never
p. How frequently did you have to watch what you ate fairly carefuiiy
to avoid stomach upsets?

A-B-C-D- E
Almost Almost
aiways never

q . Were you often constipateci or have suffered from diarrhea?

A - B - C D - E
ALmos t AImost
aiways never

r . Did you frequently feel nauseous (e-g., sick to your stornach)?

A - B C D - E
AImost Almost
always never

S. Did you seem to have stomach flu more often than your friends?

A - B - C D - E
Strongly Strongly
aiFe disagree

t. Did you seem to be ailergic to just about everything in the air?

A-B-C-D- E
Strongly Strongly
agree disagree

u . Did you develop asthma, or asthma-like symptoms (sneezing,

shortness of breath) when you were reaiiy under pressure or
stressed?

A - B - C D - E
Almost Aimost
always never

V. in the last year, how many days were you "sick in bed" unable to
attend work because of your health?

A-B- C-D- E
O days 1-2 days 3 4 days 5-6 days 7or
more days
3. The questions in this scale ask you about your feelings and thoughts DURING THE LAST MONTH,
in each case, you will be asked to indicate how often you felt or thought a certain way. Although some of
the questions are similar, there are differences between them and you should treat each one as a separate
question, The best approach is to answer each question fairIy quidcIy. That is, don't try to count up the
number of times you Zelt a particular way, but rather indicate the alternative that seems like a reasonable
estimate.

Never Sometirnes Very often

a. In the 1 s t month how often have you been upset

because of something that happened unexpectedly?

b. In the iast month, how often have you felt that

you were unable to control the important things
in your life?

c. in the last month, how often have you felt nervous

and stresseci?

d. in the last month, how often have you dealt

successf~~IIywith irritating Me hassles?

e. Ln the last month, how often have you felt that you
were effectiveiy coping with important changes
that were occurring in your Me?

f. In the last month, how often have you felt

confident about your ability to handle your
personal problems?

g. Ln the Iast month, how often have you felt

that things were going your way?

h. Ln the last month, how often have you f o u d that you

could not cope with al1 the things that you had to do? 1

i. In the last month, how often have you k e n able to

control imtations in your life? 1

j. in the last month, how often have you felt that you
were on top of things? 1

k. in the last month, how often have you been angered because
of things that happened that were oukide your controI? 1

1. Ln the Iast month, how often have you found yourself

thinking about things that you have to accomplish? 1

m. in the last month, how often have you k e n able to

control the way you spend your tirne? 1

n. In the Iast month, how often have you felt difficuities

were piling up so high that you could not overcome hem? 1
4. The foiiowing 15 items ask questions about the stress you fed generaiiy in your job. Cirde the
number that best represents your response to each item ushg the s a l e below. if the question does
not appty to your situation (e.g., if a question refers to your subordinates and you do not have any
subordinates) then please circle NA (for not applicable).

1 = No stress a t ail
5 = Extrerne stress
NA = Not applicabk
a. How much stress do you fee1 in your relationship with your supervisor? N A 1 2 3 4 5

b. How much stress or tension do you feeI because of confiicts with your
supervisor? NA1 2 3 4 5

c. How much stress or tension do you feei because your supervisor

doeni't teU you what he/she expects of you? NA1 2 3 4 5

d. How much stress or tension do you feel because your supervisor doesn't
give you aU the information you need to perform your job properly? NA1 2 3 4 5

e. How much stress or tension do you feel because you receive confiicting
job demands from different people? NA1 2 3 4 5

f. How much stress or tension do you feel because your supervisor doesn't
permit you to use your judgment in solving probtems? NA1 2 3 4 5

g. How much stress do you feel because of your supenrisor wanting

you to produce more? NA1 2 3 4 5

h. How much stress or tension do you feel because your supervisor sets
deadlines which are difficult to meet? NA1 2 3 4 5

i. How much stress or tension do you feel in your relationships with other
coworkers? NA1 2 3 4 5

j. How much stress or tension do you feel because of your connicts with
other coworkers? NA1 2 3 4 5

k. How much stress or tension do you feel because coworkers do not

give you the cooperation you need?

1. How much difficulty do your su bordinates have in getting dong

with each other?

m. How much stress or tension do you feel in your relationships with

your subordinates?

n. How much stress or tension do you feel because of conflicts with

your subordinates?

o. How much stress or tension do you feeI because subordinates do

not give you the cooperation you need?
5. Following is a Iist of FOUR DEFERENT ASPECTS OF YOUR JOB. For each aspect, there is a number
of words and phrases which rnight describe your job, as vou see it. For example, your work might be
Fascinating, Routine, Satisfying or Boring. Your supervisor might Ask your advice, be Hard to please,
Impolite and so on.

In the blank before each descriptive item please mark a:

Y for "yes" if the term describes how you see that aspect of your job
-
-
N for "no" if the term does NOT describe your job
2if you are not certain whether to mark Y or N
If a particular aspect (e.6, Tour Subordinates")does not apply to y o u situation (e.g., you do not have
any subotdinates), simply write N/A for thefirst item of that particular columh Fil1 in those aspects that
appfy to your situation.

Answer each term for the way you generally view your job. Be sure to write in a N, or 2 for every
descriptive item on this sheet.

WORK YOUR SUPERVIÇOR

- Routine - Hard to please

- Boring - Praises good work

- Good - Tactfui
- Creative - lnfluentiai
- Respected - U p-to-da te
- Hot - Doesn't supervise
enough
- Pleasant
- Quick-tempered
- Useful
- T e k m e where 1
- Tiresorne stand

- On your feet - Knows job weIl

- Leaves me on my
own
- Gives a sense of
accomplishment - Around when needed
COWORKERS YOUR SUBORDNATES

- Stimulating - Stimulating
- Boring B o ~ g

- Slow - Slow
- Ambitious - Ambitious
- Stupid - Stupid
- Responsible - ResponsibIe
- Fast - Fast

- Easy to make - Easy to make

enernies enemies

- Taik too much - Talk too much

- Smart - Smart
L a z y

- Unpleasant
- No privacy - No privacy
- Active - Active
- Narrow interests - Narrow interests
- Loyal - LoyaI
- Hard to meet
 PART D
The questions in this section of the survey focus on your personal
background and work situation

1. Which of the following most closely describes your m e n t

occupational position at the university?

-F a d t y
Librarian
CIerical/Secretarid (exempt)
CIerical/SecretariaI (non-exempt)
Professional/ Managerial

2. How Iong have you been in your current position?

years and month(s)

3. How much experience do you have in a job of your m e n t

capacity?

year(s) and month@)

4. PIease respond to the following statements using the scale below.

Strongly Neither Agree Strongly

disagree nor disagree agree

a. 1 often think about quitting my job.

b. 1wiii probably look for a new job in the next year.

c. 1 would want to quit this job if it were possible.

d. 1 would hm down a job offer if it came tomorrow.

e. 1 plan to be with the Uof G for quite a while.

f. Sometimes 1 get so irritated with the U of G 1 think about

quitting jobs.

g. I'm planning to quit my job within the next year.

 .
5 For the four statements below. please circle 1 (yes) or 2 (no)as
appropriate.
Yes No

a. 1am actively searching for another

job right now ................................ 1 2

b. 1 have applied for other jobs in the

last year ..................................... 1 2

c. 1have had a job interview in the

1 s t year ....................................... 1 2

d. 1 have had a job offer in the past year... 1 2

.
6 In what yeax were you bom? Year: 19

.
7 Please indicate your marital status:

Married or Living with a partner......................... 1

Single. never been married ................................. 2

Divorced or separatecl.....................................3

Widowed ........................................................4

.
8 What is the highest Ievel of education you have attained?

Some high school ......................................... 1

Completcd high school ................................... 2

Cornpleted comrnunity college ..........................3

Completed technicai school .............................. 4

Completed Bachelor's degree in arts. science.

engineering,etc............................................. 5

Some post graduate training ............................. 6

Completed post graduate degree (Master's level.

professional designation. Doctoral level) ............. 7
9. What is your own and your spouse/partnefs (if applicabIe) current
gross incorne from all sources at this time?

Your Your
own spouse
Less thm $30,000 ............................... 1 1

over $130,ûûû .................................... 8 8

END OF SURVEY .
Thank you for cornpfeting this survey. Please use the rest of the page
for any additionai comments you wodd like to mnke.

PIease place your completed questionnaire into the large self-

addressed envelope provided and send it back to us through the
campus maif.

Thank you.
 Appendix D

Debriefing F o m
 Sexual Harassment Research Debriefing

Çexuai harassment is an issue of increasing concern to Canadian organizations and

institutes of higher learning. As such, our study intended to contribute to a more
comprehensive understanding of the nature of sexual harassment in the workplace. More
specifxally, our study sought to gather knowledge in order to develop a mode1 of sexud
harassment f m i n g on the relative contributions of personal vulnerability, organizationai
context, and job context to the manifestation of sexually harassing behaviours. In contrast to
rnany previous studies that have tended to treat sexual harassment as a unitary construct, the
present shidy regarded sexual harassment as a behavioural constnict composed of three
related, yet conceptudy distinct and nonoverhpping dimensions: gender harassment,
unwanted sexuai attention, and sexuai coercion.

Based on previous research, we suspect that certain persona1 variables rnay render a
woman more vulnerable to sexual harassrnent - for example, those who are younger or
unmarried rnay be more likely to be harassed. Further, the organizationai or job context in
which a wornan must operate rnay contribute to sexual harassrnent For example, in the past,
women have been shown to experience more harassrnent in workplaces where sex-ra tios favour
men. Also, harassrnent is more IikeIy when wornen do not perceive that their organization
takes harassrnent cornplaints seriousIy and when they perceive that their workpiace is
sexualized. A woman's normative beliefs about sexual harassment rnay also render her more
vulnerable; that is, if a woman thinks sexud harassrnent is something one simply has to live
with she rnay be a more çusceptibIe target of harassing behaviours. We also suspect that the
type of sexual harassment rnay Vary as a function of who the perpetrator is - for exampIe,
supervisor, suborciinate, or coworker. Since the presence of sexual harassrnent arguabIy exacts
a high cost to both the individuai and the organization, the outcomes with respect to the
different types of sexual harassrnent are &O k i n g examined. Outcomes of interest in the
present study were physical and emotional weil-being, intentions to quit, work-related negative
mood, and job stress.

Taken together, we are attempting to determine how ail of the variables in this study
combine and interact to better describe the process of sexual harassrnent. Lf you would like to
receive a copy of the resulb of this study, please clip the following request and submit it in the
s r n d envelope (with your consent forrn):

1would like to receive a copy of the study's overail results when the research project is
completed.

1 would like to receive the resuits via campus mail. My name is and my
campus address is:

or

1 wouid like to receive the results via E-maii. My E-mail address is:
 Appendix E

Descriptive Statistics
Descriptive Statistics

Correlations

Variable Mean SD 1 2 3 4 5 6

*9e
Marital status
Education
Income
Experience
Length
Organizational Sanctions
Boss
Mentor
Proportion female coworkers
Department gender ratio
Interaction opp. - higher
Interaction opp. - equal
Interaction opp. - lower
Gender har. - higher
Gender har. - equal
Gender har. - lower
Unwanted sex. att. - higher
Unwanted sex. att. - equal
Unwanted sex. att. - lower
Sexual coercion - higher
Sexual coercion - equal
Sexual coercion - lower
Work-related negative mood
Psychosomatic health
Perceived stress
Turnover intentions
Work satisfaction
Stress with coworkers
Stress with subordinates
Stress with supervisor
Satisfaction with subordinates
Satisfaction with supervisor
Satisfaction with coworkers
SEQ criterion item
 Correlations
- - -- - --

Variable 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Age
Marital statu8
Educat ion
Income
Experience
Length
Organizational Sanctions
Boss
Mentor
Proportion female coworkers
Department gender ratio
Interaction opp. - higher
Interaction opp. - equal
Interaction opp. - lower
Gender har. - higher
Gender har. - equal
Gender har. - lower
Unwanted sex. att. - higher
Unwanted s e x . att. - equal
Unwanted sex. att. - lower
Sexual coercion - higher
Sexual coercion - equal
Sexual coercion - lower
Work-related negative mood
Psychosomatic health
Perceived stress
Turnover intentions
Work satisfaction
Stress with coworkers
Stress with subordinates
Stress with supervisor
Satisfaction with subordinates
Satisfaction with supervisor
Satisfaction with coworkers
SEQ criterion item
 Correlations

Variable 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

A9e
Marital status
Education
Income
Experience
Length
Organizational Sanctions
Boss
Mentor
Proportion Eemale coworkers
Department gender ratio
Interaction opp. - higher
Interaction opp. - equal
Interaction opp. - lower
Gender har. - higher
Gender har. - equal
Gender har. - lower
Unwanted sex. att. - higher
Unwanted sex. att. - equal
Unwanted sex. att. - lower
Sexual coercion - higher
Sexual coercion - equal
Sexual coercion - lower
Work-related negative mood
Psychosomatic health
Perceived stress
Turnover intentions
Work satisfaction
Stress with coworkers
Stress with subordinatee
Stresa with supervisor
Satisfaction with subordinates
Satisfaction with supervisor
Satisfaction with coworkers
SEQ criterion item
 m m m w
1
I
. . . .
O L C N N
I I I

d i 0 0 D O d
, O. V. I O. N. O.
I I I I
 Correlations

Variable 34 35

A9e
Marital status
Educat ion
Incorne
Experience
Length
Oxganizational Sanctions
Boss
Mentor
Proportion female coworkers
Department gender ratio
Interaction opp. - higher
Interaction opp. - equal
Interaction opp. - lower
Gender har. - higher
Gender har. - equal
Gender har. - lower
Unwanted sex. att. - higher
Unwanted sex. att. - equal
Unwanted sex. att. - lower
Sexual coercion - higher
Sexual coercion - equal
Sexual coercion - lower
Work-related negative mood
Psychosomatic health
Perceived stress
Turnover intentions
Work satisfaction
Stress with coworkers
Stress with subordinates
Stress with supervisor
Satisfaction with subordinates
Satisfaction with eupenrisor
Satisfaction with coworkers --
SEQ criterion item .13
TEST TARGET (QA-3)

APPLIED
--=
-
-.
- I M G E lnc
1653 East Main Street
,

--
-- --
- ,
-
,Ftachester. NY 14609 USA

-- Phone: 716482-0300
Fax: 716/288-5989

O 1993. Applied Image. Inc.. All Rights Resefveâ