fOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES

Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005: 293-309

What is Fair and to Whom? Fairness Evaluations of

Socio-sexual Behavior*
Lucy L. Gilson
Assistant Professor of Management
University of Connecticut

Donald B. Fedor
Professor of Organizational Behavior
Georgia Institute of Technology

Jonelle L. Roth
Instructor
St. Edward's University
With the numbers of women in the
workforce continuing to rise (U.S.
Department of Labor, 2003), there is
now a greater likelihood of men and
women working together, resulting in
the increased sexualization of the
workplace (Gutek etai, 1990). Sexual
harassment (SH) has been defined as
any "unwelcome sexual advances, re-
quests for sexual favors, and other
verbal or physical conduct of a sexual
nature" (EEOC, 1980: 219). While
SH has been legally defined, socio-
sexual behavior is broader in scope
and refers to any activity of a sexual
nature such as comments on an in-
dividual's appearance, sexual jokes.
and asking a co-worker for a date
(Gutek et at, 1990). As such, socio-
sexual behavior is more ambiguous
and often not severe or pervasive
enough to be legally considered SH.
However, it is important to note that
these types of behaviors can rise to
the level of SH. Additionally, socio-
sexual behavior can have wide-rang-
ing negative consequences because it
affects those directly and indirectly
involved in the incident (Bowes-
Sperry and Powell, 1999). Given this,
socio-sexual behavior has been de-
scribed as an issue that managers
need to address (e.g., Gutek et at,
1990). Finally, it has been suggested

* The authors wish to thank Gary Powell and Vicki Magley for their helpful comments and sugges-
tions.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005

(293)
294 GILSON, FEDOR AND ROTH
that research on socio-sexual behav-
ior needs to be integrated with more
mainstream Organizational Behavior
theories (Lengnick-Hall, 1995).
To further our understanding of
the impact of socio-sexual behavior at
work, it has been proposed that how
the incident is perceived, the re-
sponse taken by the target, and the
subsequent outcome of that response
all need to be more thoroughly ex-
amined (Knapp et al., 1997). Gonse-
quently, the present study uses justice
theory to examine whether observers
of a socio-sexual incident perceive
the response taken by the target and
the subsequent outcome as procedur-
ally fair to those directly (target and
initiator) and indirectly (workgroup)
involved. In the following sections, we
review justice and socio-sexual re-
search. Specifically, we examine the
role of observers in both literatures
and integrate them to offer hypothe-
ses.
Justice Theoiy
Justice theory considers both the
fairness of procedures used to reach
a decision (procedural) and the fair-
ness of the outcomes received (dis-
tributive). In addition, researchers
have also investigated how individuals
react to incidents, victims of injustice,
and the criteria used to judge the
processes and outcomes as fair. Fair
procedures are important because
they signal that employees are re-
spected, trusted, and that decisions
are made in a consistent, unbiased
manner and, thus, that the organiza-
tion is a desirable place to work (Lind
and Tyler, 1988). For procedural jus-
tice evaluations, it has been consis-
tently found that allowing the target
to have input (voice) and or some
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005
control in the processes used to reach
an outcome is extremely important
(Lind and Tyler, 1988). In addition,
the outcome associated with the de-
cision has also been found to impact
how processes are perceived (Am-
brose et ai, 1991). Here it has been
argued that the actions of the target,
who is accountable, and the situation
in which the incident took place all
influence fairness evaluations (Folger
and Gropanzano, 2001). Further, re-
searchers have found that both those
directly (victims) and indirectly (ob-
servers) involved in an incident tend
to use the same criteria to determine
whether individuals are treated fairly
(Tyler, 1990).
In the justice literature, it has been
found that severe negative events can
have ramifications that go beyond the
target of the action (i.e., Brockner et
al., 1994). In part, this is because in-
dividuals often have ties that tran-
scend their working relationships,
such that they care deeply about what
happens to others (Jones, 1991). Fur-
ther, because individuals are con-
cerned about issues of (in)justice
(Gropanzano et al., 2001), and in par-
ticular procedural justice, it has been
found that perceptions of fairness are
consistent predictors of organiza-
tional and work-related outcomes
(Lind and Tyler, 1988). To date, how-
ever, we know of few studies that have
integrated justice theory into re-
search on socio-sexual behavior
(Hogler et al., 2002). A justice lens
can further our understanding of so-
cio-sexual behavior because how a
target responds to such behaviors
may be judged by observers with re-
gard to whether it is procedurally fair
to all involved.
 WHAT IS FAIR AND TO WHOM?
Research and Theory on Socio-
sexual Behavior
To date, researchers have exam-
ined antecedents to socio-sexual be-
havior; however, less attention has
been given to what happens following
such an incident (e.g., Knapp et al.,
1997; Bowes-Sperry and Powell,
1999). In part, this may be due to the
numbers of responses available, mak-
ing it difficult to generalize how a tar-
get will respond (Bowes-Sperry and
Tata, 1999). For the most part, target
responses have been categorized
along a continuum ranging from in-
formal to formal (Knapp et al., 1997;
Terpstra and Baker, 1988). Based on
this categorization, targets have been
found to most frequently respond in
a more informal manner that entails
such behaviors as avoiding the initia-
tor, limiting contact with him' to pub-
lic places, ignoring him, or just trying
to laugh it off (Gutek, 1985). In con-
trast, a more formal response is one
where the target uses an organiza-
tion's prescribed guidelines. How-
ever, while targets are publicly en-
couraged to use an organization's
reporting procedures, it often re-
mains their least preferred alternative
(Gutek and Koss, 1993).
While research has continued to in-
crease our understanding of socio-
sexual behavior, those who are not di-
rectly involved, often labeled
observers, provide a perspective that
has received less consideration. The
negative effects of socio-sexual behav-
ior have been described as wide-
reaching because they can impact
both those directly and indirectly in-
' While the authors acknowledge that both men and women are targets, due to the predominance
of females as targets, the target in this research will be referred to as she and the initiator as he.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005
295
volved (Bowes-Sperry and Powell,
1999). Additionally, for issues that
critically affect a co-worker, other
group members are not passive or dis-
interested bystanders. The SH litera-
ture has stated that "observers may
have a relationship with the victim,
the harasser, or both" (Kulik et al.,
1997: 50). Furthermore, observers
have been described as vital in curb-
ing socio-sexual behavior because vic-
tims frequently do not come forward;
thus, if action is going to be taken, it
often depends on observers reporting
the incident or confronting the initi-
ator. Finally, in ascertaining legal lia-
bility, observer accounts are fre-
quently used by the courts and
organizations to establish the validity
of the case and determine who is at
fault (Johnson, 1995).
In trying to further our under-
standing of how to fairly resolve issues
of socio-sexual behavior, we along
with others (e.g., Bowes-Sperry and
Powell, 1999; Tata, 2000) argue that
understanding the perceptions of ob-
servers is something that should not
be overlooked. This argument is suf)-
ported in both the justice and SH lit-
erature. In the SH literature, it has
been found that targets and observers
of an incident give very similar re-
sponses regarding what a target
should do following an incident (Ku-
lik et al., 1997). Likewise, justice re-
searchers have reported that victims
and observers respond similarly when
asked what constitutes a fair proce-
dure to resolve a dispute (Brockner et
al., 1994). Finally, because the num-
bers of individuals who have experi-
296 GiLSON, FEDOR AND ROTH
enced some form of socio-sexual be-
havior is so high,^ tbe likelibood tbat
observers to an incident bave bad
tbeir own personal experience witb
socio-sexual bebavior furtber makes
tbem "qualified" observers. To tbis
end, researcbers bave consistently
found tbat individuals witb prior SH
experience, eitber as targets or vic-
tims, respond very differently to sucb
incidents tban tbose witbout sucb ex-
perience (i.e., Gowan and Zimmer-
man, 1996; Gutek, 1985). However,
researcb bas yet to examine bow ob-
servers judge target responses (infor-
mal or formal) witb regard to
wbetber tbey provide fair procedures
and outcomes to tbose directly and
indirectly involved.
Integrating Justice Theory and
Responses to a Socio-sexual Incident
Severity Ratir^. Sexual barassment
bas been legally defined by tbe EEOG
(1980: 219) and many organizations
define it in tbeir policy documents.
However, even tbougb defined, indi-
viduals often differ wben deciding
wbetber an incident constitutes SH.
By definition, socio-sexual bebavior is
more ambiguous and includes bebav-
iors tbat are of a sexual nature but
may, or may not, be seen as barassing.
Tberefore, wben judging target re-
sponses, tbe severity of tbe incident
must first be assessed. In part, tbis is
because bow observers perceive an in-
cident will affect bow tbey judge tbe
subsequent response taken by tbe tar-
get. For instance, researcb on punisb-
ment events bas found tbat proce-
dural justice is determined by tbe
"perceived rigbtness of a person's
fate or treatment" (Ball et al., 1994:
' Prior research has reported that almost half of all women will experience some form of SH during
their working lives (i.e., Fitzgerald and Shullman, 1993; Gutek, 1985).
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005
300). Additionally, wben individuals
are seen as deserving punisbment,
managers wbo punisb are judged to
be more procedurallyjust tban tbose
wbo do not (Nieboff eia/., 1998). Tbis
finding bas been attributed to tbe un-
derlying belief tbat "fairness puts
tbings rigbt" (Gropanzano et al.,
2001: 165).
Tbe above justice researcb suggests
tbat reprimanding individuals
deemed responsible signals tbat sucb
bebavior will not be tolerated. Like-
wise, tbeoretical work on moral inten-
sity (Jones, 1991) and etbical decision
making (Rest, 1986) bas found tbat
individuals are more likely to take ac-
tion wben tbey judge tbe magnitude
and consequences associated witb an
incident as serious. Here, researcbers
bave found tbat observers' intensity
evaluations influenced tbeir willing-
ness to intervene (Bowes-Sperry and
Powell, 1999) and tbat for incidents
of SH, individuals pursue more asser-
tive responses wben tbe incident is
perceived as more severe (Gruber
and Bjorn, 1986; Livingston, 1982).
Tberefore, it is expected tbat ob-
servers wbo rate an incident of socio-
sexual bebavior as more severe will
judge tbe target pursuing a formal re-
sponse as more fair to tbose directly
and indirectly involved. Tbe rationale
being tbat following an organiza-
tion's procedure sbould allow all par-
ties to bave voice and control over tbe
process used to resolve tbe incident.
In contrast, wben tbe target pursues
a more informal course of action, ob-
servers wbo rated tbe incident as less
severe sbould judge ber actions as
more fair to all parties because tbe in-
cident is not seen as serious enougb
 WHAT IS FAIR AND TO WHOM?
to warrant the organization's involve-
ment.
Hypothesis lA; Severity ratings of socio-sex-
ual behavior will be positively related to pro-
cedural fairness evaluations when the target
pursues a formal response.
Hypothesis IB: Severity ratings of socio-sex-
ual behavior will be negatively related to
procedural fairness evaluations when the
target pursues an informal response.
Gender Differences in Fairness Ratings
by the Target. Beyond the perceived
severity of an incident of socio-sexual
behavior, the SH literature suggests
that there may be gender differences
in the fairness evaluations of target
responses along with coping strate-
gies (Magley, 2002). However, prior
research regarding the response pre-
ferred by males and females is mixed
(e.g., Riger, 1991; Williams et at,
1995), which leads us to offer com-
peting hypotheses.
One argument made in the SH lit-
erature is that because women em-
pathize with the target and are more
angry than men that the incident oc-
curred, they will want her to pursue a
more formal response (Williams et al.,
1995). A study by Wayne (2000)
found that females were more likely
to hold the organization responsible
for SH than were males. Given this, a
formal course of action where the tar-
get uses organizationally-established
procedures should help guarantee
that the incident is resolved fairly. In
part, this is because organizational
procedures should allow all parties to
have a voice in the proceedings,
maintain records of the behavior and
subsequent follow-up, and have as
their goal ensuring that all parties are
properly treated.
In keeping with this logic it has
been suggested that men are more
likely to be comfortable in a sexual-
ized work environment and, thus,
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005
297
more likely to see the target taking
formal action as over-reacting (Gu-
tek, 1995). Furthermore, it has been
reported that some men judge inci-
dents of socio-sexual behavior as less
threatening and serious and conse-
quendy believe that the individuals
involved should be able to resolve
them without the intervention of oth-
ers (Kenig and Ryan, 1986). If this is
the case, then a target pursuing a
more formal response may be seen as
over-reacting and less procedurally
fair to all involved, as a third-party is
being brought into the equation and
documentation is being made of what
was really a "non-event."
Hypothesis 2A: Women will rate a formal
response taken by the target of an incident
of socio-sexual behavior as more procedur-
ally fair than will men.
Hypothesis 2B: Men will rate an informal
response taken by the target of an incident
of socio-sexual behavior as more procedur-
ally fair than will women.
An alternative set of arguments
suggests that women focus more on
maintaining relationships and, in
contrast to men, their self-views are
often based on their connectedness
to others (Bem, 1974). To this end,
Riger (1991) proposed that while
men value winning, women place a
greater emphasis on minimizing hurt
and maintaining workgroup har-
mony. Based on this rationale, filing
a formal complaint appears to be in
direct opposition to the values that
women seek to preserve. Formal pro-
cedures, while allowing for voice and
control, may serve to polarize the par-
ties by making the dispute public and
forcing a winner and loser to emerge.
Furthermore, studies have found that
for women who reported SH and
took formal action, things often get
worse (Livingston, 1982). For in-
stance, the published results of court
298 GiLSON, FEDOR AND ROTH
cases indicate that women who filed
complaints were often discharged,
demoted, or chose to quit (Terpstra
and Baker, 1988). Given this, for
women, past experiences (direct or
indirect) and their concern for the
well-being of others may lead them to
believe that fair procedures are those
where the target is allowed to decide
for herself, without the involvement
of others, how the incident should be
handled. Therefore, women should
perceive all parties being fairly
treated when the target's response is
informal.
Argued from the male perspective,
justice research that has examined
conflict resolution has found that
men prefer alternatives that follow
prescribed steps to ensure that a win-
ner emerges (Sweeney and McFarlin,
1997; Tata, 2000). Therefore, a for-
mal response may be perceived as the
only fair way to "really" solve the
problem. Consequently, while formal
actions may appear to a female ob-
server as a response that escalates
rather than diffuses the situation, to
a male it may appear as the only fair
means to ensure a fair and final res-
olution.
Hypothesis 3A: Women will rate an infor-
mal response taken by the target of an in-
cident of socio-sexual behavior as more pro-
cedurally fair than will men.
Hypothesis 3B; Men will rate a formal re-
.sponse taken by the target of an incident of
socio-sexual behavior as more procedurally
fair than will women.
Outcomes Fairness. Finally, proce-
dural justice theory states that the
outcome of a dispute is an important
criterion used to determine whether
procedures are fair because out-
comes provide tangible information
on the benefits associated with a de-
cision (Ambrose et al., 1991). In ad-
versarial situations, the verdict or out-
JOURNAL OF MANAGERL\L ISSUES Vol. XVtl Number 3 Fall 2005
come has been found to impact
whether the procedures are favorably
and fairly rated (LaTour, 1978).
Therefore, in instances of socio-sex-
ual behavior, the outcome following
the target's response may influence
whether observers rate the response
as fair. While several different out-
comes can result from a target's re-
sponse, predominantly they are ei-
ther positive (i.e., favorable for the
target), such that the offensive behav-
ior ends, or negative, such that the
behavior continues. Therefore, ob-
servers are expected to judge a re-
sponse that results in a positive out-
come for her as more procedurally
fair.
Hypothesis 4: Formal and informal re-
sponses taken by the target of socio-sexual
behavior that result in a positive outcome
will be rated as more procedurally fair than
those that result in a negative outcome.
METHODS
Participants
Participants for this study were
drawn from two southeastern univer-
sities and included full- and part-time
undergraduates, MBAs, and partici-
pants in an executive education pro-
gram. Participation was on a volun-
tary basis and anonymity was
guaranteed. Of the 218 participants,
62% were male and 90% were Cau-
casian. The mean age was 26.7 years
(SD = 7.57) and 69% had full-time
work experience (M = 10 years; SD
= 17.3).
Procedure
Participants were first shown a
video vignette developed and used by
a consulting firm for their ethics
training seminars and they were later
asked to read detailed scenarios. The
 WHAT IS FAIR AND TO WHOM?
video enabled participants to see the
incident in context. After viewing the
vignette, but prior to reading the sce-
narios, participants were asked to rate
the incident's severity. Following
these questions, participants read two
detailed scenarios developed based
upon prior research (Gutek and Koss,
1993). These scenarios were random-
ized such that half of the participants
first read that the target pursued a
formal response, while the others first
read the informal response. In the
formal scenario, the target was de-
picted as using the organization's re-
porting procedures and filing a for-
mal complaint. In the informal
scenario, the target was described as
limiting contact with the initiator to
public places or locations where co-
workers were present.
The second half of the design ma-
nipulated the outcome of the re-
sponse. Randomly assigned, half of
the participants read that a positive
outcome resulted from the target's
informal response (the behavior
stopped), while the others read that
the outcome was negative (the behav-
ior continued). Likewise, half read
that the formal response resulted in
a positive outcome, while the others
read that the outcome was negative.
Therefore, the design for target re-
sponse was a within-subject manipu-
lation as all participants read both
scenarios, whereas the outcome ma-
nipulation was between subjects as
participants only read one outcome
per response.
Manipulation Checks
Prior to testing our hypotheses, we
conducted a series of manipulation
checks to ensure that the scenario or-
der did not impact fairness evalua-
tions. There were no significant dif-
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005
299
ferences in procedural fairness
judgments based on which scenario
was read first.
Dependent Variables
Fairness to the Target/Initiator. Pro-
cedural justice has been measured in
many different ways (see Tyler and
Lind (1992) for a review of meas-
ures). We adapted measures from Ty-
ler and Schuller (1990) and asked
whether the target's response was
perceived to allow those involved
(target and initiator) to have input
(voice) into the process and control
over the procedures (all items availa-
ble from authors). Following each
scenario, participants read a set of
four questions that asked whether the
target's response was procedurally
fair to the target, and another four
that asked whether the response was
procedurally fair to the initiator. The
procedural fairness scales had accept-
able reliabilities in both scenarios
(formal and informal) with Cron-
bach's alpha ranging from .83 to .88.
See Table 1 for means, standard de-
viations, and reliability coefficients
for all measures.
Workgroup Fairness. For workgroup
procedural fairness we once again
adapted four items from Tyler and
Schuller (1990) that asked observers
whether the response taken by the
target maintained harmony within
the group, maintained a working re-
lationship between the parties in-
volved, and among those not directly
involved. For both scenarios, work-
group fairness had acceptable relia-
bilities with a Cronbach's alpha of .89
for the formal response and .85 for
the informal response (see Table 1
for descriptive statistics). Finally, all
justice items were measured on a five-
point Likert-type scale with anchors
300 GILSON, FEDOR AND ROTH

oq *^

* *
* (N
C50 (N

I o o

* *
— cs o in

-a o
# *
Tf
o —o
r-

01)
o
<

— ts o —
r^ (D O O
1o
O
84
79
83

eg •/"I 3 ON 00

w O (U w O
c
•c
£ I j5 '5 £
o°
* <u

2 >
I"! >» (• ca cd •>.
* -3
Cl- c/5 22 p |

Z * ,

JOURNAL OF MANAGERL\L ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005

 WHAT IS FAIR AND TO WHOM?
ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (a
great amount).
Independent Variables
Incident Severity. Following the view-
ing of the vignette, but prior to read-
ing the scenarios, participants were
asked to respond to four items that
asked them to rate the severity of the
incident (alpha = 86). The items
were adapted from those developed
by Fitzgerald and colleagues (1988)
to measure perceptions of SH. Be-
cause we were interested in partici-
pant severity ratings of the incident,
no definitions were provided so as
not to prime the respondents. In ad-
dition, we wanted the situation to be
as realistic as possible, and in most in-
stances of socio-sexual behavior, ob-
servers do not review definitions mo-
ments after witnessing an incident.
Given that responses on this scale
ranged from 1.25 to 5.0 (M = 3.81,
SD = .93), respondents clearly did
not all agree on the incident's sever-
ity. Again, all items were measured on
a five-point Likert-type scale with an-
chors ranging from 1 (strongly disa-
gree) to 5 (strongly agree).
Sex. A participant's sex was coded
as either "0" (female) o r " l " (male).
Outcome. The manipulation of the
outcome that followed the response
taken by the target was either positive
or negative for her. Again, while par-
ticipants read two scenarios, there
was only one outcome associated with
each. A negative outcome (where the
behavior continued) was coded as
"0" and a positive outcome (where
the behavior ended) was coded as
"1."
Covariates
We used both work and prior SH
experience as covariates in our anal-
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005
301
ysis. We used prior SH because re-
searchers have found that individuals
with such experience respond differ-
ently. Individuals with some form of
prior SH experience may be more
aware of the difficulties and costs as-
sociated with trying to resolve such
problems (e.g., Blakely et al, 1995;
Gowan and Zimmerman, 1996).
Therefore, after completing the sur-
vey, participants were asked whether
they had ever been a target or witness
to an incident of SH. Of our respon-
dents, 32% (n = 69) reported having
experience as a witness, while 17% (n
= 37) reported having been a target
of SH. Somewhat surprisingly, only
two individuals reported both witness
and target experience. We used stan-
dardized t-tests to determine whether
targets and witnesses were signifi-
cantly different from one another
with regard to severity ratings (t (105)
= .298; p = ns) and found no differ-
ences. T"hus, targets and witnesses
were combined into a single prior SH
variable. Finally, because our sample
had participants with a wide range of
work experience (none to 31 years),
we used this as a covariate as research
has found that work experience can
sensitize individuals to incidents of
SH as well as options for handling
such incidents (e.g., Bowes-Sperry
and Powell, 1999; Bowes-Sperry and
Tata, 1999).
Analysis
Multivariate analysis of covariance
(MANCOVA) was used to simultane-
ously test the effects of the independ-
ent variables (severity, sex, outcome)
on the dependent variables (fairness
to the target, initiator, and work-
group). MANCOVA was used since
we have a 3X2X2 (three dependent
measures, two responses, and two out-
302 GiLSON, FEDOR AND ROTH

Table 2
MANCOVA and ANCOVA F Statistics for Each Dependent Variable by Target Response

Controls Independent Variables

Work Prior SH
Dependent Variabtes Experience Experience Severity Sex Outcome
Formal Response
MANOVA Results 0,92 1,24 2,28* 1,84 17,65**
ANOVA Results
Fairness to Target 0,84 1,03 0,72 0,86 17,35**
Fairness to Initiator 1,55 2,17* 3,14* 0,29 29,70**
Workgroup Fairness 0,75 6,40** 2,03'f 3,60* 5,49**
Informal Response
MANOVA Results 1,90 2,01 1,10 2,75* 27,90**
ANOVA Results
Fairness to Target 1,41 1,37 0,97 5,22* 17,91**
Fairness to Initiator 0,21 0,15 2,51* 1,02 0,99
Workgroup Fairness 7,12** 3,44* 0,14 0,01 80,17**
N = 218
df(l,217)
All analysis was conducted with covariates (prior SH and work experience).
tp<,10; *p<,05;**p<,01

comes) design with intercorrelated Hypotheses Testing

dependent measures. In addition,
given the study design and the une-
qual cell sizes, individual analysis of
covariance (ANCOVA) was also used
to test our hypotheses (Neter et ai,
1989). Finally, work and prior SH ex-
perience were used as covariates in all
of our analyses.
RESULTS
Overall, the independent and con-
trol variables tended not to be corre-
lated with each other. However, those
that were correlated were in the ex-
pected directions. Specifically, being
female was significantly related to the
severity rating (r = —.37; p < .01)
and to having prior SH experience (r
= - . 3 2 ; p < .01). Severity ratings
were significantly correlated with
prior SH experience (r = .31; p <
.01) and prior SH and work experi-
ence were correlated (r = .20; p <
.05).
Hypotheses 1 proposed that the se-
verity ratings of a socio-sexual inci-
dent would be related to procedural
fairness evaluations of the target's re-
sponse. Evaluations of incident sever-
ity were significantly related to fair-
ness judgments when the target's
response was formal (F (1, 217) =
2.28, p < .05) (see Table 2 for MAN-
COVA and ANCOVA F statistics).
Specifically, the ANCOVA results in-
dicate that individuals who rated the
incident as more severe perceived the
target taking a formal course of ac-
tion as more fair to the initiator than
did those who rated the incident as
less severe (F (1, 217) = 3.14, p <
.05) (Table 3). When the target's re-
sponse was informal, the MANOVA
results suggest that the severity rat-
ings were not associated with proce-
dural fairness (F (1, 217) = 1.10, p =
ns). These results provide partial sup-
port for HIA and no support for
HIB.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol, XVII Number 3 Fall 2005

 WHAT IS FAIR AND TO WHOM? 303

tive
90 OS
o 90 o o

Outcome
r> r» ri ri ^^ cn ri
Z

ive
ON
NO
00 ./>
NO NO o NO 90 O
ff^
o ri f ) c5 ri cn
a<
ale
^
^ NO OS 90 O
NO O 00
s CN CN CN'
vo
S ri ri ri cn CN
V

^ CN ON 90 OS VO "O
cn 90 OO

a oi CN CN '^ ri cn CN

I T3

I
,33

CN CN
NO
NO ON o 00 o
r^ CN ri CN' CN' ""^ r^ CN

1s ;g
rj
Tf

CN
o o <N
CN
rj 00
NO
CN
r< (N CN'
2.87 1
2,00
2.75

1.97

3,18
2.51

2.65

o
241

vi 5
II •9 S
£& ,_ CN 90
rj-
OS ON
00 ON NO
«5 ri O ra (/)
c4 CN (N CN ri
«I'i
i / i " <"

I •gst
ence

,85

CN CN 00
00
NO NO q C IU ^ ^
o CN CN CN CN CN cn n CO M
O ^
CN
0.)
IJ • ^ 'O '7^
X
•ts cn
,39

,00
.62
,55

,38

,93

5 o V) ^ C«

1 CN CN CN CN CN cn ri

•c

CO
^ , o ^^ o u
S3
tiat

tiat

cn 00
E £? E
3 'S a3 'S
1
ANCOVA Resul

ANCOVA Resul

o o u o o a
o a' 3
MANCOVA1

MANCOVA1
Formal Respi

Informal Res
Workgro

Workgro

3
Faimess
Faimess

Faimess
Faimess

o
Z

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol, XVII Number 3 Fall 2005

304 GiLSON, FEDOR AND
Hypotheses 2 and 3 were set up as
competing to investigate the effects
of observer sex on fairness evalua-
tions of the target's response. Hy-
pothesis 2A proposed that women
would rate the target's formal re-
sponse as more procedurally fair than
would men, and H2B posited that
men would rate the informal re-
sponse as more procedurally fair than
would women. Neither of these re-
ceived support. In contrast, H3A pro-
posed that women would rate the in-
formal response as more
procedurally fair, while H3B posited
that men would favor the formal re-
sponse. The data indicate that H3A
was partially supported. Sex was a sig-
nificant overall predictor of proce-
dural fairness ratings for the target's
informal response (F (1, 217) = 2.75,
p < .05) and the ANCOVA results
suggest that this difference is attrib-
utable to the target fairness ratings
(see Tables 2 and 3). Women rated
the target pursuing an informal
course of action as more fair to the
target than did men. However, for
men, the results were not significant.
Thus, H3B was not supported.
Finally, Hypothesis 4 proposed that
the outcome following the response
taken by the target would be related
to procedural fairness evaluations.
For both the formal and informal re-
sponse, the MANCOVA results were
significant. When the target pursued
a formal response, a positive outcome
was rated as fair to the target (F (1,
217) = 17.35, p < .01), initiator (F
(1, 217) = 29.70, p < .01), and work-
group (F (1, 217) = 5.49, p < .01).
When the target's response was infor-
mal, a positive response was rated as
fair to the target (F (1, 217) = 17.91,
p < .01) and workgroup (F (1, 217)
= 80.17, p < .01), but not initiator (F
(1, 217) = 0.99, p = ns).
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol, XVII Number 3 Fall 2005
ROTH
DISCUSSION
This study was designed to investi-
gate observer procedural fairness
evaluations of socio-sexual behavior.
As such, the purpose of the study was
twofold. First, we wanted to examine
observer judgments of socio-sexual
behavior. Until now, the majority of
research has focused solely on the tar-
get within the context of SH. Second,
we felt that using a justice framework
would bring additional theory to this
area of inquiry. Given these goals, hy-
potheses were developed concerning
the effects of the incident's severity,
the sex of the participant observer,
and the outcome of the target's re-
sponse. Several of the hypotheses re-
ceived at least some support and the
results point to some interesting, al-
beit complex, implications.
Not surprisingly, the outcome of
the response taken by the target (dis-
tributive justice manipulation) was
found to be the most consistent pre-
dictor of procedural fairness ratings.
This was especially true for the target
and workgroup. Following both the
informal and the formal response, a
positive outcome was rated as more
fair to the target and the workgroup
than a negative outcome. These re-
sults suggest that when behaviors of a
socio-sexual nature stop, either re-
sponse was rated as more fair to these
constituencies. However, procedural
fairness ratings for the initiator were
only related to the outcome when the
target pursued a formal response.
Here, the target using organizational
reporting procedures and the behav-
iors continuing (i.e., negative out-
come for her, but maybe a positive
one for him) was rated as more fair
to him, as apparently his behaviors
were not forced to change. Alterna-
tively, a negative outcome following
 WHAT IS FAIR AND TO WHOM?
the formal response may be rational-
ized as "the incident could not have
been that bad" because if it had
been, the organization would have
ensured it stopped. Hence, the target
using formal reporting procedures
and receiving a negative outcome
were perceived as more fair to the in-
itiator.
The extent to which participants
rated the incident as severe was re-
lated to the overall fairness ratings
when the target took formal, but not
informal, action. These results ap-
pear to be driven by the procedural
fairness ratings for the initiator.
Here, when the incident was seen as
more severe, observers perceived the
initiator as being more fairly treated
when the target's response was for-
mal. Therefore, the more the inci-
dent was considered as severe, the
more the observers felt that it was fair
for the initiator if a third party got
involved and, thus, established poli-
cies and procedures were followed.
One explanation may be that in the
case of a severe incident of socio-sex-
ual behavior, a formal response en-
sures that the initiator is given a voice
and allowed to present his side of the
story. In contrast, the informal re-
sponse may automatically imply g^ilt
and, as a result, provide no avenue
through which the initiator can prove
his innocence, control how the con-
flict is resolved, or ensure that he is
fairly treated or perceived as fairly
treated by others.
When developing our hypotheses,
we found conflicting evidence as to
whether women and men would favor
formal or informal methods of dis-
pute resolution. However, based on
the SH literature, we did expect to
find a number of sex differences. Sur-
prisingly, we found very few. How-
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol, XVII Number 3 Fall 2005
305
ever, the current results are consis-
tent with prior justice research (Kulik
et al., 1996). With regard to proce-
dural fairness for the target, our re-
sults appear to be in keeping with
prior SH research suggesting that
women do not want to get others in-
volved and escalate the conflict, but
would rather handle it themselves
and hope that the problem goes away.
This response also supports prior re-
search that highlights how things of-
ten "get worse" for women who take
formal action (Terpstra and Baker,
1988). Another possibility is that men
perceived the informal action as less
fair to the target than did women due
to the fact that "nothing" was really
being done to end the behavior, a dis-
pute resolution policy not favored by
men (Sweeney and McFarlin, 1997).
In contrast, group harmony or fair-
ness appears to require that organi-
zational policies and procedures be
used. Justice research has long found
that when individuals have voice into
how decisions are made, the decision
is favorably rated regardless of the
outcome (Folger, 1977). This may be
what observers perceived would take
place in the formal scenario as an or-
ganization's policy should allow input
from all interested parties including
those who were only indirectly in-
volved in the incident (Kulik et al.,
1997). Finally, these findings are also
interesting given that the observer's
prior SH experience and work expe-
rience were used as covariates in all
the analysis. Therefore, these rela-
tionships go beyond those attributa-
ble to work or prior SH experience
and may be due to women identifying
more strongly with the target or men,
feeling that things should be handled
within a formal framework.
306 GiLsoN, FEDOR AND ROTH
limitations, Future Research, and
Implications
While this study takes a first step in
filling in some of our knowledge gaps
regarding observer evaluations of tar-
get responses to socio-sexual behav-
ior at work, it is not without limita-
tions. First, we focused on two
extreme responses with clearly de-
fined outcomes. Responses and out-
comes to these types of incidents are
not always as clearly delineated and
future research should continue to
examine different response alterna-
tives and their subsequent outcomes.
However, using responses and out-
comes at either end of the continuum
(i.e., formal vs. informal) is a useful
initial step in incorporating fairness
into the equation because even this
simplified model produced an inter-
esting set of results. Second, tbe in-
cident viewed by participants was am-
biguous. Since we were interested in
severity ratings as a predictor, we
chose an incident tbat would gener-
ate variance in bow it was perceived.
However, future researcb may want to
consider a range of incidents in tbe
same study design.
Furtbermore, our sample consisted
of a range of individuals from full-
time students to individuals witb a
great deal of work experience. As
sucb, our sample was not randomly
selected, given tbat everyone was en-
rolled in some form of educational
program. Wbile we did control for
work experience, our sample is still
more representative of professionals
tban of tbe general population.
Tberefore, a generalization to otber
populations (i.e., blue-collar) needs
to be done witb some caution and
replications witb otber groups are
needed.
JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3
Witb tbese limitations in mind,
tbere are some interesting implica-
tions tbat can be drawn from tbis
study. First, procedural fairness rat-
ings were affected by severity ratings
of tbe incident, tbe outcome of tbe
target's response, and tbe observer's
sex. Tbese results bigbligbt wby em-
ployees may react very differently and
sbould belp to explain wby formal
company policies are not always used
or perceived to be tbe most fair. In-
terestingly, tbe more tbe incident was
considered to be severe, tbe more
participant observers felt tbat it was
important to get a tbird party in-
volved for tbe sake of being fair to tbe
initiator. Given tbat observers ex-
pressed a range of severity responses
(mean 3.82/5.00, SD = .93), organi-
zations may want to continue to train
employees on wbat constitutes socio-
sexual bebavior, SH, and tbe role of
witnesses in curbing potentially ba-
rassing bebaviors.
Finally, tbe result of tbe target's re-
sponse bad tbe greatest impact on
fairness; all cases wbere tbe bebavior
stopped were perceived as fair to tbe
target and workgroup. It tberefore
appears tbat organizations sbould fo-
cus on putting an end to socio-sexual
bebaviors tbrougb eitber formal or
informal means. Wbile tbere is still a
great deal to learn, we bave some ad-
ditional information on bow and wby
observers make procedural fairness
judgments. Tbe participants in tbis
study represent observers wbo, wbile
only indirectly involved, could be af-
fected by tbe target response and tbe
subsequent outcome of tbat re-
sponse. Furtbermore, tbeir feelings
of wbetber otbers were treated fairly
can carry over to otber events and
possibly affect tbeir future relation-
sbips witb tbeir co-workers and tbe
organization.
Fall 2005
 WHAT IS FAIR AND TO WHOM? 307

References

Ambrose, M. L., L. K. Harlan and C. T. Kulik. 1991. "Infiuence of Social Com-

parison on Perceptions of Organizational Fairness. "/oMrwa^ of Applied Psychol-
ogy 76: 239-246.
Ball, G. A., L. K Trevifio and H. P. Sims. 1994. "Just and Unjust Punisbment:
Infiuences on Subordinate Performance and Citizensbip." Academy oj Man-
agement Journal 37: 299-322.
Bem, S. L. 1974. "Tbe Measurement of Psycbological Androgyny." Journal of
Consulting and Clinical Psychology 41: 155-162.
Blakely, G. L., E. H. Blakely and R. H. Moorman. 1995. "Tbe Relationsbip Be-
tween Gender, Personal Experience, and Perceptions of Sexual Harassment
in tbe Workplace." Employee Responsibilities and Rights Journal 8: 263-274.
Bowes-Sperry, L. and G. N. Powell. 1999. "Observers' Reactions to Socio-Sexual
Bebavior at Work: An Etbical Decision-Making Perspective." Journal of Man-
agement 25: 779-802.
and J. Tata. 1999. "A Muldperspective Framework of Sexual Harass-
ment: Reviewing Two Decades of Researcb." Handbook of Gender and Work. Ed
G. N. Powell. Tbousand Oaks, GA: Sage.
Brockner, J., M. Konovsky, R. Gooper-Scbneider, R. Folger, G. Martin and R. J.
Bies. 1994. "Interactive Effects of Procedural Justice and Outcome Negativity
on Victims and Survivors of Job Loss." Academy of Management Journal 37: 397-
409.
Gropanzano, R., Z. S. Byrne, D. R. Bobocel andD. E. Rupp. 2001. "Moral Virtues,
Fairness Heuristics, Social, and Otber Denizens of Organizational Justice."
Journal of Vocational Behavior 58: 164-209.
Equal Employment Opportunity Gommission. 1980. "Guidelines on discrimi-
nation on tbe basis of sex (29 GRF Part 1604)." Federal Register 45: 219.
Folger, R. 1977. "Distributive and Procedural Justice: Gombined Impact of
'Voice' and Improvement on Experienced Inequity." Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology 55: 108-119.
and R. Cropanzano. 2001. "Fairness Tbeory. Justice as Accountability."
Advances in OrganizationalJustice. Eds.J. Greenberg and R. Gropanzano. Stam-
ford, GA: University Press.
Gowan, M. and R. Zimmerman. 1996. "Impact of Etbnicity, Gender, and Previ-
ous Experience on Juror Judgments in Sexual Harassment Czses." Journal of
Applied Social Psychology 26: 596-617.
Gruber, J. E. and L. Bjorn. 1986. "Women's Responses to Sexual Harassment:
An Analysis of Sociocultural, Organizational, and Personal Resources Mod-
els." Social Science Quarterly 6: 814-826.
Gutek, B. A. 1995. "How Subjective is Sexual Harassment? An Examination of
Ratter Effects." Basic and Applied Social Psychology 17: 447-467.
1985. Sex and the Workplace: Impact of Sexual Behavior and Harassment on
Women, Men, and Organizations. San Francisco, GA: Jossey-Bass.
-, A. G. Goben and A. M. Konrad. 1990. "Predicting Socio-Sexual Bebav-
ior at Work: A Gontact Hypotbesis." Academy of Management Journal 33: 560-
577.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005

308 GiLSON, FEDOR AND ROTH

and M. P. Koss. 1993. "Gbanged Women and Gbanged Organizations:

Gonsequences of and Goping witb Sexual Harassment." Journal of Vocational
Behavior 42: 28-48.
Hogler, R. L., J. H. Frame and G. Tbornton. 2002. "Workplace Sexual Harass-
ment Law: An Empirical Analysis of Organizational Justice and Legal Policy."
Journal of Managerial Issues 14 (2): 234-250.
Johnson, G. 1995. "Gourts Guide Forms on Sexual Harassment." Wall StreetJour-
na/76:May 17.
Jones, T. M. 1991. "Etbical Decision Making by Individuals in Organizations: An
Issue-Gontingent Model." Academy of Management Review 16: 366-395.
Kenig, S. and J. Ryan. 1986. "Sex Differences in Levels of Tolerance and Attri-
bution of Blame for Sexual Harassment on a University Campus." Sex Roles
15: 535-549.
Knapp, D. H., R. H. Faley, S. E. Ekeberg and C. L. Z. DuBois. 1997. "Determi-
nants of Target Responses to Sexual Harassment: A Conceptual Framework."
Academy of Management Review 22: 687-729.
Kulik, C. T., E. A. Lind., M. L. Ambrose and R. J. MacCoun. 1996. "Understand-
ing Gender Differences in Distributive and Procedural Justice." Social Justice
Research 9: 351-369.
, E. L. Perry and J. M. Scbmidtke. 1997. "Responses to Sexual Harass-
ment: Tbe Effect of Perspective. "/oMrwa/ of Managerial Issues 1: 37-53.
LaTour, S. 1978. "Determinants of Participant and Observer Satisfaction witb
Adversary and Inquisitorial Modes of Adjudication. "/oMrnai of Personality and
Social Psychology 36: 1531-1545.
Lengnick-Hall, M. L. 1995. "Sexual Harassment Researcb: A Metbodological
Gritique." Personnel Psychology 48: 841-864.
Lind, E. A. and T. R. Tyler. 1988. The Social Psychology of Procedural Justice. New
York, NY: Plenum Press.
Livingston, J. A. 1982. "Responses to Sexual Harassment on tbe Job: Legal, Or-
ganizational, and Individual Actions." Journal of Social Issues 38: 5-22.
Magley, V. J. 2002. "Goping witb Sexual Harassment: Reconceptualizing
Women's Resistance. "/oMrwaZ of Personality and Social Psychology 84: 930-942.
Neter, J., W. Wasserman and M. Kutner. 1989. Applied Linear Statistical Models:
Regression, Analysis of Variance, and Experimental Designs. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
Nieboff, B. P., R. J. Paul andJ. F. Buncb. 1998. "Tbe Social Effects of Punisbment
Events: Tbe Influence of Violator Past Performance Record and Severity of
tbe Punisbment on Observers'Justice Perceptions and Attitudes."/owTOaZ of
Organizational Behavior 19: 589-602.
Rest,J. R. 1986. Moral Development: Advances in Research and Theory. NewYork, NY:
Praeger.
Riger, S. 1991. "Gender Dilemmas in Sexual Harassment Policies and Proce-
dures." American Psychologist 46: 497-505.
Sweeney, P. D. and D. B. McFarlin. 1997. "Process and Outcome: Gender Dif-
ferences in tbe Assessment of Justice." Journal of Organizational Behavior 18:
83-98.
Tata,J. 2000. "Sbe Said, He Said. Tbe Influence of Remedial Accounts on Tbird-
party Judgments of Go-worker Sexual Harassment. "/oMrwa/ of Management 26:
1133-1156.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005

 WHAT IS FAIR AND TO WHOM? 309

Terpstra, D. E. and D. D. Baker. 1988. "Outcomes of Sexual Harassment

Gbarges." Academy of Management Journal 31: 185-194.
Tyler, T. R. 1990. Why People Obey the Law. New Haven, GT: Yale University Press.
and E. A. Lind. 1992. "A Relational Model of Autbority in Groups."
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology 25. New York, NY: Academic Press,
and R. Scbuller. 1990. "A Relational Model of Autbority in Work Or-
ganizations: Tbe Psycbology of Procedural Justice." American Bar Foundation.
U.S. Department of Labor Statistics, Bureau of Labor Statistics. 2003. "Employ-
ment status of tbe civilian population by race, sex, and age [Table A-2]."
Available: bttp://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t02.btm.
Wayne, J. H. 2000. "Disentangling tbe Power Bases of Sexual Harassment: Gom-
paring Gender, Age, and Position Power." Journal of Vocational Behavior 57:
301-325.
Williams, G. W., R. S. Brown, P. R. Lees-Haley and J. R. Price. 1995. "An Attri-
butional (Gausal Dimensional) Analysis of Perceptions of Sexual Harass-
ment." /owmaZ of Applied Social Psychology 25: 1169-1183.

JOURNAL OF MANAGERIAL ISSUES Vol. XVII Number 3 Fall 2005