This article was downloaded by: [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich]

On: 27 December 2014, At: 15:53

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Communication Quarterly
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rcqu20

The development of a sexual

harassment proclivity scale: Construct
validation and relationship to
communication competence
a b
Shereen G. Bingham & Brant R. Burleson
a
Associate Professor in the Department of Communication ,
University of Nebraska , Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska, 68182–0112
b
Professor in the Department of Communication , Purdue
University , 1366 LAEB 2144, West Lafayette, Indiana,
47907–1366
Published online: 21 May 2009.

To cite this article: Shereen G. Bingham & Brant R. Burleson (1996) The development of a sexual
harassment proclivity scale: Construct validation and relationship to communication competence,
Communication Quarterly, 44:3, 308-325, DOI: 10.1080/01463379609370020

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01463379609370020

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms
 & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/
terms-and-conditions
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014
 The Development of a Sexual
Harassment Proclivity Scale:
Construct Validation and Relationship
to Communication Competence
Shereen G. Bingham and Brant R. Burleson
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

This study focuses on developing, validating, and applying a self-report measure of the
proclivity to engage in sexually harassing behavior. The validity of the scale is
demonstrated by its moderate correlations with attitude measures relevant to sexual
harassment, its nonsignificant correlation with the need to provide socially desirable
responses, and by showing that potential victims of sexual harassment view the included
behaviors as harassing. Further, it was shown that college males indicating a higher
proclivity to engage in sexual harassment were more suspicious of and apprehensive about
dating, less satisfied with their dating activities, more anxious about communication, and
found communication less rewarding.

KEY CONCEPTS: Sexual harassment proclivity, tolerance for sexual harassment,

unwillingness to communicate, dating competence

SHEREEN G. BINGHAM (Ph.D., Purdue University, 1988) is an Associate Professor in

the Department of Communication, University of Nebraska at Omaha, Omaha, Nebraska,
68182-0112. BRANT R. BURLESON (Ph.D., University of Illinois, 1982) is a Professor
in the Department of Communication, 1366 LAEB 2144, Purdue University, West
Lafayette, Indiana, 47907-1366. A version of this paper was presented at the annual
conference of the 1993 Speech Communication Association in Miami, FL.

esearch by communication scholars on sexual harassment has grown substantially in recent

years (see the review by Keyton, 1996). Clearly, both researchers and the public at large have
Dme increasingly aware of the prevalence and harmful effects of sexual harassment.
Moreover, a broad spectrum of communication researchers have recognized that sexual harassment is
a quintessentially communicative phenomenon. Keyton (1996, p. 94) notes that "sexual harassment
is one type of message sending and message receiving" (also see Gilsdorf, 1990). Wood (1993)
expands on this notion:

Whatever else sexual harassment may entail — power issues, psychological motives and
dysfunctions, cultural constructions including gender roles — it is undeniably a communication
phenomenon. It is so in at least two ways. First, the existence and meaning of sexual
harassment are constructed symbolically both through culturally formed and legitimized
definitions and through the processes whereby individuals interpret experiences. Second,
sexual harassment and the responses to it are enacted through communication, (p. 10)

308 Communication Quarterly, Vol. 44, No. 3, Summer 1996, Pages 308-325
 In a similar vein, Kreps (1993, p. 1) explains that "communication is the primary medium through
which sexual harassment is expressed; it is the means by which those who are harassed respond to
harassment; and it is also the primary means by which policies for eliminating sexual harassment
in the workplace can be implemented."
Within the communication discipline, feminists and others have articulated a "cultural" or
"discursive" perspective on sexual harassment, how it is sustained, and how it may be contested and
challenged (e.g., see Bingham, 1994). A cultural perspective maintains that gender ideologies that
cultivate and normalize sexual harassment are socially and discursively inscribed into individual
consciousness, communication styles, and patterns of interaction between the genders (Grauerholz,
1994; Wood, 1994b). For example, this viewpoint suggests that Western culture teaches males to
be aggressive sexually and to gain and exercise power over others, and consequently, to feel proud
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

of themselves for doing so (Wood, 1994b). Men who embody these gender lessons may enact and
reproduce them in their interactions and relationships with women through violence, sexual
harassment, and engendered communication patterns (Bingham, 1996; Wood, 1994a).
Although a cultural perspective provides valuable insights about how sexual harassment is
sustained and normalized within a culture, it does not generate a detailed analysis of individual
differences within cultural subgroups with respect to the tendency to engage in sexually harassing
behaviors. For example, if we assume that sexual harassment of women by men is a culturally
produced and reproduced phenomenon, why are only some men inclined to sexually harass women?1
Adequate accounts about individual variations in sexual harassment would appear to require
analyses which are, at least in part, focused at the psychological and behavioral levels.
Very little is known about the attitudes and communication tendencies that characterize sexual
harassers (Pryor, 1987; Zalk, 1990). Although a number of authors have provided descriptions of
the psychological and behavioral tendencies that may characterize men who harass, these descriptive
analyses have been derived from victims' accounts or authors' observations and reasoning rather than
from the responses of harassers themselves (e.g., Gutek, 1985; Dziech & Weiner, 1990; Zalk, 1990).
Because most sexual harassment is perpetrated by men (McKinney & Maroules, 1991), research that
is designed to identify the characteristics that may differentiate men who are and are not likely to
engage in particular forms of sexual harassment may suggest important strategies for combatting the
problem. Particular kinds of attitudes, orientations, and communication competencies in men, for
example, may cultivate or inhibit tendencies to sexually harass. Once the cognitive and
communicative characteristics of harassers can be identified and better understood, researchers may
investigate how they can be altered through educational and organizational interventions. Further,
researchers may begin to explore how particular experiences in men's lives reinforce and mitigate
general socialization tendencies.
The ability of researchers to study men who are likely to engage in sexual harassment is
impeded by the difficulty of distinguishing these men from others in the population. Harassers cross
all ages, professional ranks, and family situations (Gutek, 1985; Zalk, 1990). Perpetrators of sexual
harassment are unlikely to identify themselves or volunteer to participate in research, and may not
even view their behavior as sexual harassment (Zalk, 1990). Moreover, legal and ethical
considerations discourage researchers from asking suspected harassers to participate in their
investigations. Thus, one of the most feasible strategies available to researchers for assessing the
tendency to sexually harass may be the development of a self-report instrument that can be easily
administered to large samples of men from various segments of society in a way that provides
anonymity to respondents.
In a pioneering study, Pryor (1987) developed the Likelihood of Sexually Harassing (LSH)
scale, a self-report measure of males' likelihood of engaging in sexual harassment. The scale asks
men to imagine themselves in each often situations which present opportunities to sexually exploit
attractive women without fear of being caught or punished. For each scenario respondents are asked
to indicate how likely they would be to offer job- or task-related assistance or opportunities to a

Sexual Harassment Proclivity Scale 309

 woman in exchange for sexual favors.2 Reliability of the LSH is consistently high (Pryor, 1987;
Pryor & Stoller, 1990). Validity of the instrument has been demonstrated through positive
correlations with self-report measures of adversarial sexual beliefs, acceptance of rape myths, sex
role stereotyping, acceptance of interpersonal violence, and several other cognitive and behavioral
indices (see Pryor, 1987; Pryor & Lewis, 1990; Pryor & Stoller, 1990).
Although the LSH has proven to be a reliable and useful measure of sexual harassment
proclivity, the instrument has several potential problems. First, the content validity of the scale is
limited in that it taps only a very narrow range of harassing behaviors. Sexual harassment
encompasses a broad set of communicative behaviors in addition to the one assessed by the LSH
(Clair, 1994; Pryor & Stoller, 1990).3 Thus, while the LSH promotes generalizability across ten
similar situations by asking individuals to respond to multiple scenarios, it does not assess the range
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

of communicative behaviors that may constitute sexual harassment. Second, because the LSH asks
men to imagine there would be no possibility of reprisal for their harassing actions, the instrument
may provide an unrealistic measure of men's actual likelihood of engaging in sexual harassment.
Public attention to sexual harassment and its illegality during the past several years has made
immunity from reprisal an unrealistic presumption. Finally, the LSH is cumbersome to administer.
Respondents are required to read and respond to each often paragraph-long scenarios. This feature
may constrain researchers who wish to administer other instruments in conjunction with the LSH.
In the present paper we report the development of the sexual harassment proclivity index'
(SHPI), an instrument that attempts to overcome some of the problems of Pryor's (1987) Likelihood
of Sexually Harassing scale. Our instrument taps a broader range of sexually harassing
communicative behaviors than does Pryor's scale, does not instruct respondents that they are
immune to reprisal for their actions, and asks respondents to read only a single sexual harassment
scenario. In the study reported below, we assessed the convergent validity of the SHPI by
examining its association with several relevant attitudinal measures, as well as with Pryor's LSH.
In addition, because sexual harassment is illegal and individuals may be hesitant to admit they would
be likely to engage in it, we assessed the association of the SHPI with social desirability as a test of
discriminant validity. Finally, to assess representational validity, we examined the extent to which
potential victims of sexual harassment perceived the communicative acts included in the SHPI to
be harassing, offensive, and inappropriate. We were concerned with the perceptions of potential
victims rather than with the perceptions of potential perpetrators because, by definition, the victim's
perceptions are considered paramount in determining whether sexual harassment has occurred.
This study also examined our measure of sexual harassment proclivity in relation to variables
tapping communication and heterosocial competence. The SHPI items tap forms of sexual
harassment that involve coercion and persistent intrusion into a subordinate's personal life and
physical space in the attempt to gain social-sexual compliance. Although some of the behaviors
represented by the SHPI items might be considered acceptable or flirtatious in other contexts, by
law these behaviors plausibly constitute sexual harassment in the situation portrayed by the SHPI
(Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1980). Specifically, illegal sexual harassment
includes repeated attempts to seek social/sexual intimacy from a subordinate when those attempts
are unwelcome (Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, 1980). The coercive and intrusive
nature of these attempts clashes with the reciprocity and affect that typically characterize
communication during the development of mutually satisfying relationships between women and
men. As Hughes and Sandier (1986) argue:

In most normal interpersonal relationships an individual can exercise freedom of

choice in deciding with whom they wish to establish a close, intimate relationship.
These choices are based on mutual attraction, caring, and a reciprocal interest in
pursuing the relationship. These elements are absent in sexual harassment, (p. 2)

310 Bingham & Burleson

 In the present study we investigate the possibility that men who have a proclivity to subject
women to particular forms of sexual harassment may have deficient communication skills and a
negative orientation toward interpersonal interactions, especially with women. More specifically,
men who repeatedly attempt to gain social-sexual intimacy with women subordinates whom they
find attractive, even after the women have rejected those attempts, may suffer from low levels of
communicative competence. In particular, these men may have poor dating skills and may find
communication and dating to be unsatisfying, anxiety-producing, and unrewarding. Thus, we
hypothesized that males who have a greater proclivity to sexually harass as indicated on the SHPI
would report less competence and satisfaction in their dating relationships (Prisbell, 1988) and
would report greater unwillingness to communicate (Burgoon, 1976; McCroskey & Richmond,
1987) than males who have a low proclivity to sexually harass.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

Method
Participants
Participants in the study were 145 male undergraduates attending a large midwestern university.
All participants were enrolled in sections of basic communication courses. The participants ranged
in age from 19 to 36 and averaged 20.84 years. The great majority of the participants were juniors
and seniors. Virtually all of the participants had some outside employment experience.

Procedures
Participation in the study was strictly on a voluntary basis and no inducements (such as money,
extra credit, or research credit) were employed to reward the participants for their involvement in
the study. Participants responded.to a single questionnaire during a regularly scheduled class
session. The questionnaire integrated all instruments utilized in the study. The participants were
told that the researchers were conducting a survey of attitudes and beliefs about communication,
dating, sex, and male-female relationships. Most participants completed the questionnaire in about
45 minutes. They were then thanked for their help and dismissed.

Instruments
The questionnaire completed by the participants contained measures of: (a) our newly
developed assessment of the proclivity to engage in sexual harassment, (b) Pryor's (1987) measure
of the likelihood of engaging in sexual harassment, (c) the tendency to engage in sex-role
stereotyping, (d) the endorsement of adversarial sexual beliefs, (e) attitudes supporting sexual
harassment, (f) tolerance for sexual harassment, (g) tolerance of violence toward women, (h)
acceptance of rape myths, (i) the need to be perceived as acting in a socially desirable manner, (j)
dating competence, and (k) unwillingness to communicate in interpersonal settings. Each of these
measures is discussed in turn.
The Sexual Harassment Proclivity Index (SHPI). The assessment of sexual harassment
proclivity employed in the present study is a refinement of a measure initially presented by Bingham
and Burleson (1990). The SHPI asks respondents to imagine themselves as a manager in a large
organization who has recently hired an "outgoing and friendly" female employee named Donna.
The following scenario is then described:

Suppose that during the first few weeks Donna worked for you, you invited her out to
dinner several times. She turned you down each time. This was really disappointing to
you because you think Donna is very pretty and you would like to get to know her better.
Listed below are various strategies that men have said they might use in this situation. If
you were in this situation, how likely would you be to use each of the strategies listed?

Sexual Harassment Proclivity Scale 311

 A list of 26 "date-getting strategies," including both verbal and nonverbal communication
behaviors, follows the scenario. In the circumstances described, each of the 26 "strategies" may
constitute a form of sexual harassment according to guidelines established by the Equal Employment
Opportunity Commission (EEOC). The EEOC (1980) defines sexual harassment as sexual behavior
that is in any way connected to employment decisions, or that creates an intimidating, hostile, or
offensive working environment. The "date-getting strategies" included both some mild forms of
harassment (e.g., commenting on how pretty Donna is) and some extreme forms (e.g., telling Donna
that she would be fired if she didn't go out on a date). Participants indicated the likelihood of using
each strategy on five-point Likert scales (1 = highly unlikely to use, 5 = highly likely to use). Table
1 contains a list of the 26 behaviors.4
A separate, small-scale study was conducted to ensure that the stimulus situation used with the
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

SHPI was perceived as plausible by subjects. An additional sample of 30 male participants was
recruited from the same population used in the main study. These participants averaged 2T.4 years
of age. Virtually all of the participants had some type of paid work experience: 30% had worked
less than a year, 10% had worked 1-2 years, 7% had worked 2-3 years, and 53% had worked 3 or
more years. All participants were volunteers enrolled in basic communication courses at a large
midwestern university; most of the participants (80%) were majoring in the physical sciences,
engineering, agriculture, or business while only a small group (20%) were majoring in the liberal
arts or other areas.

TABLE 1. Items in the Initial Version of the Sexual Harassment Proclivity Index
1. Keep asking Donna to have dinner with you until she accepts your invitation.
2. Comment on how pretty Donna is.
3. Give Donna a raise, hoping she will change her mind about dating you.
4. Put your arm around Donna to let her know that you like her.
5. Make suggestive comments to Donna to get her interested in you.
6. Give Donna difficult, boring assignments until she agrees to have dinner with you.
7. Tell Donna that all your other female assistants have dated you.
8. Make subtle passes at Donna until she changes her mind about dating you.
9. Try to convince Donna that she would enjoy having dinner with you.
10. Comment on what a good figure Donna has.
11. Offer Donna a raise or promotion if she will start seeing you socially.
12. Try to be especially sexy when Donna is around.
13. Let Donna know nonverbally how attractive she is.
14. Remind Donna that you can help her advance in the company.
15. Ask Donna if she is romantically involved with anyone.
16. Wear tight or sexy clothes to work to get Donna interested in you.
17. Pat or touch Donna to let her know you think she's attractive.
18. Ask Donna about her past romantic relationships.
19. Tell Donna you would like to get to know her on a personal level.
20. Tell Donna you will fire her if she doesn't start seeing you socially.
21. Brush up closely to Donna and look in her eyes.
22. Ask Donna if dating her boss would bother her.
23. Let Donna catch you looking at her body.
24. Start asking Donna to work overtime with you.
25. Tell Donna about your past romantic relationship.
26. Let Donna go, and hire someone else who is equally qualified for the job.

312 Bingham & Burleson

 Participants received a questionnaire describing 3, randomly ordered "interpersonally
complicated" work situations they might encounter some day: (a) the "new personal assistant"
situation used in the main study, (b) a "head secretary situation" in which the participant (who was
now a manager) was involved in a conflict with the supervisor of office secretaries who controlled
office procedures, and (c) a "former college buddy" situation in which the participant had
supervisory responsibility over an old college friend who had been exhibiting a drinking problem.5
Participants rated each of these situations on 7-point scales for realism (very unrealistic - very
realistic), believability (very unbelievable - very believable), and plausibility (very implausible -
very plausible). Internal consistencies (Cronbach's alphas) for the 3 scales were .79 for the new
personal assistant situation, .92 for the head secretary situation, and .86 for the former college buddy
situation. The mean of the 3 scales was computed for each situation to provide an index of overall
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

plausibility.
All three of the situations were seen as plausible by the participants (for the new personal
assistant situation, M = 4.97, sd= 1.32; for the head secretary situation, M = 5.77, sd = 1.11; and
for the college buddy situation, M = 5.02, sd, 1.21). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA found
the three situations to differ significantly in perceived plausibility, [F (2, 58) = 6.98, p < .002].
Follow-up comparisons found no difference in perceived plausibility for the new personal assistant
and college buddy situations, [/ (29) = 0.20, p > .80]. However, the head secretary situation was
perceived as somewhat more plausible than both the new personal assistant situation [/ (29) = 3.21,
p < .01] and the college buddy situation [t (29) = 4.13,p < .001]. In sum, the results of this pretest
found the new personal assistant situation to be perceived as at least a moderately plausible work
situation.
A primary purpose of the present study was to use the questions on the SHPI to develop coherent,
reliable measures of the proclivity to engage in harassment. Thus, analyses assessing the structure,
distribution, and internal consistency of responses to the SHPI are presented in the results section
of this report.
Likelihood of Sexually Harassing (LSH) Scale. The LSH was developed by Pryor (1987) to
assess the likelihood of males engaging in sexually exploitive behaviors toward females. As noted
previously, the LSH is composed of 10 scenarios that depict a male in the position to control an
important reward or punishment for a female target. For each scenario, respondents are asked to
indicate how likely they would be to engage in three different behaviors. One behavior involved
offering a reward or withholding a punishment in exchange for sexual favors, and one involved
asking the female out for a dinner date (the other question pertained to whether the male would
engage in rewarding or punishing actions). Participants responded to each item on five-point Likert
scales. Pryor only scores the item pertaining to the exchange of sexual favors; thus, his measure can
be viewed as an assessment of the likelihood of engaging in what MacKinnon (1979) terms "quid
pro quo" harassment. We believe that Pryor's instrument can also be used to generate a measure of
what MacKinnon terms "condition of work" harassment. Asking for dates in a context where the
provision of benefits is clearly and immediately relevant can be viewed as coercive. Thus,
participants' responses to the "asking to dinner" item were employed as a measure of the likelihood
of engaging in condition of work harassment.
Participants' responses to the quid pro quo item for each of the ten scenarios were summed to
provide an index of the likelihood of engaging in quid pro quo harassment; similar procedures were
employed to generate an index for the likelihood of engaging in condition of work harassment. High
internal consistencies were observed for each measure; Cronbach's alpha for the quid pro quo index
was .95, and was .92 for the condition of work index. Pryor (1987) and his coworkers (e.g., Pryor
& Lewis, 1990) have reported several studies supporting the validity of the LSH.
Sex-role stereotyping. A measure developed by Burt (1980) was utilized to assess the extent
to which participants thought that men and women should act in highly stereotypical ways. This
assessment consists of nine items (e.g., "A woman should be a virgin when she marries") to which

Sexual Harassment Proclivity Scale . 313

 participants responded on five-point Likert scales. Cronbach's alpha for this measure was .69.
Adversarial sexual beliefs. Burt's (1980) assessment of adversarial sexual beliefs taps the
degree to which respondents view male-female relationships as characterized by hostility,
competition, and manipulation. Participants responded to each of nine items (e.g., "Most women
are sly and manipulating when they are out to attract a man") on five-point Likert scales. Cronbach's
alpha for this measure was .80.
Attitudes supporting sexual harassment. An instrument developed by Bingham (1992) was
used to assess the extent to which participants exhibited attitudes that endorse or support
occurrences of sexual harassment. The 22 items composing this scale tap beliefs and feelings about
sexually harassing behaviors in the workplace (e.g., "Women who get mad at men for making passes
at them at work are sexually inhibited"). Participants responded to each item on a five-point Likert
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

scale. Cronbach's alpha for this measure was .84.

Tolerance of sexual harassment. An instrument developed by Lott, Reilly, and Howard (1982)
was used to assess how accepting and tolerant participants were of sexually harassing behaviors.
The 10 items composing this scale tap beliefs about the appropriateness, innocence, and seriousness
of harassing behaviors (e.g., "It is only natural for a man to make sexual advances to a woman he
finds attractive"). The alpha coefficient for this measure was .80.
Tolerance for violence toward women. Burt's (1980) six-item instrument was used to assess
the degree to which individuals view interpersonal violence directed toward women as acceptable
(e.g., "A man is never justified in hitting his wife"). Participants responded to these items on five-
point Likert scales. The items exhibited an acceptable level of internal consistency {alpha = .72).
Acceptance of rape myths. Several items developed by Burt (1980) were used to assess the
acceptance of rape myths (e.g., "In the majority of rapes, the victim is promiscuous or has a bad
reputation"). Participants responded to each of eleven items on five-point Likert scales. Internal
consistency for this measure was .79.
Needfor approval. The Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale (Crowne & Marlowe, 1960)
was used to assess the extent to which participants exhibited a desire to be perceived as engaging
in socially approved forms of conduct. The 33 items composing this scale depict a variety of
socially approved actions (e.g., "I'm always willing to admit it when I make a mistake"); participants
are asked to decide whether each statement is true or false as it applies to them personally. The
internal consistency of this measure was .88.
Dating competence. A shortened version of Prisbell's (1988) Revised Relational Practices
Instrument was used to assess several aspects of dating competence. Items were also included from
Prisbell's (1987) measures of dating frequency and dating satisfaction. Participants responded to
all items for these instruments on five-point Likert scales. The specific components of dating
competence assessed, the number of items contributing to each component, and the alpha
coefficients for these items were: dating frequency, 3 items, alpha = .96; dating satisfaction, 3
items, alpha = .82; suspicion about dating, 3 items, alpha = .81; dating anxiety, 3 items, alpha =
.92; partner orientation, 3 items, alpha = .71; self-evaluation of physical attractiveness, 3 items,
alpha = .89; and overall evaluation of dating competence, 4 items, alpha = .77.
Unwillingness to communicate. Burgoon's (1976) Unwillingness to Communicate Scale was
used to assess two aspects of communication reticence or apprehension. Ten items on this
instrument assess communication anxiety or fear (e.g., "I'm afraid to speak up in conversations"),
while an additional 10 items tap the extent to which interpersonal communication experiences are
unpleasant or unrewarding (e.g., "Talking to other people is just a waste of time"). Participants
responded to all items on five-point Likert scales. Cronbach's alpha for the 10 items assessing
communication anxiety was .87; for the 10 items assessing the unrewardingness of communication
the alpha coefficient was .85.

314 • Bingham & Burleson

 Assessment of Representational Validity
Representational validity was examined in a separate study to demonstrate that the behaviors
included in the SHPI were actually perceived as sexually harassing by individuals who are likely to
be harassed at some point in their careers. Participants in this study were 101 female undergraduates
attending a medium sized metropolitan university in the midwest, enrolled in communication and
sociology courses. Most of these women (79%) were not married, and almost all (95%) reported
having had some outside employment. The ages of participants ranged from 18 to 49; 30% were
18-20; 54% were in their 20's; and 15% were 30 or older (one participant did not indicate her age).
The majority of participants (57%) were juniors and seniors. Participants also reported whether they
had ever been sexually harassed. Most respondents (51%) indicated that they had been sexually
harassed, 20% were unsure whether they had been sexually harassed, and 29% reported that they
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

had not been sexually harassed. Requests for all demographic information were positioned at the
end of the study to avoid cuing participants that sexual harassment was our focus.
Participants completed a single questionnaire during regularly scheduled class sessions. They
were presented with the "new personal assistant" situation used in the SHPI and were asked to
imagine themselves in the role of the personal assistant. The wording of the situation was slightly
modified to reflect the assistant's frame of reference:

Suppose you were hired by a male manager in a large organization to work as his assistant
on a new project. Although forty people were competing for the job, you were the person
he decided to hire. Suppose that during the first few weeks you worked for your new boss,
he invited you out to dinner several times. You turned him down each time.

The questionnaire presented the 26 behaviors included in the SHPI as "strategies that men might use
in this situation to get a date with you." Participants were asked "to imagine how you would feel
if your new boss were to direct each of the strategies toward you." They rated each of the 26
behaviors on three 5-point scales to indicate their perceptions of the behavior as inappropriate (very
inappropriate — very appropriate), offensive (very offensive — not at all offensive), and harassing
(very harassing~not at all harassing). The mean score of the three scales was computed for each of
the 26 behaviors to assess the degree to which the behaviors were perceived as objectionable.
The internal consistency of the three items was calculated for each of the 26 behaviors, except
for item 20. For item 20, there was virtually no variance — all of the respondents saw the behavior
as extremely inappropriate (M=5.00), offensive (M=4.99), and harassing, (M=4.96). Thus, even
though the lack of variability means an alpha can't be calculated, participants' responses were highly
consistent over the three scales for this item. The internal consistencies for the other items, as
assessed by Chronbach's alpha, ranged from .51 to .96. The average alpha coefficient was .83.

Results
Our analyses addressed three goals. First, we sought to develop coherent, internally consistent
measures from the SHPI. Second, we assessed the convergent, discriminant, and representational
validity of the assessments generated by the SHPI. Finally, we explored the relation between sexual
harassment proclivity and indices of communicative and heterosocial competence.

Sexual Harassment Proclivity Scale 315

 TABLE 2. Items Retained from the Sexual Harassment Proclivity Index and Their
Loadings on Intrusive Harassment and Quid Pro Quo Harassment Factors
Items Factor I: Factor II:
Intrusive Quid Pro Quo
Harrassment Harrassment

9. Try to convince Donna that she would enjoy having dinner with .85 .14
you.
15. Ask Donna if she is romatically involved with anyone .81 .18
19. Tell Donna you would like to g et to know her on a personal
level. .78 .11
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

8. Make subtle passes at Donna until she changes her mind about
dating you. .74 -.05
13. Let Donna know nonverbally how attractive she is. .73 -.10
10. Comment on what a good figure Donna has. .71 -.08
22. Ask Donna if dating her boss would bother her. .70 .17
2. Comment on how pretty Donna is. .64 -.03
18. Ask Donna about her past romantic relationships. .59 -.14
6. Give donna difficult, boring assignments until she agrees to have
dinner with you. -.06 -.88
11. Offer Donna a raise or promotion if she will start seeing you
socially. -.09 -.88
7. Tell Donna that all your other female assistans have dated you. .03 -.82
20. Tell Donna you will fire her if she doesn't start seeing you
socially. -.08 -.82
3. Give Donna a raise, hoping she will change her mind about
dating you. -.09 -.76
26. Let Donna go, and hire someone else who is equally qualified for
the job. -.03 -.54
14. Remind Donna that you can help her advance in the company. .09 -.53
Eigenvalue 10.63 2.77
Percent of Variance Explained 40.9% 10.7%

Structure and Consistency of Indices Generated by the SHPI

Several different factor analyses were performed on the 26 items composing the SHPI in the
effort to identify the most coherent representation of the structure underlying the items. Solutions
consisting of two to six factors were considered, as were both varimax and oblique rotations of the
factor structures. Scree tests indicated that a two-factor solution best fit the data; the first two
factors consistently accounted for more than 50% of the variance and no subsequent factor
accounted for as much as 5% of the variance. The two-factor solution also generated the most
interpretable and stable factors. A principal components factor analysis with an oblique rotation and
a specification of two-factor solution was thus used as a final extraction procedure. This solution
is summarized in Table 2. An oblique rotation was employed since it was assumed that the
tendencies to engage in different forms of harassment might well be correlated.
The first factor extracted by this procedure had an eigenvalue of 10.64 and accounted for 40.9%
of the total variance. A .50/.30 strength/purity standard was used as a criterion for determining item
loadings on the factors. Nine items met this criterion for Factor I (see Table 2). These items
included references to Donna's physical appearance ("Comment on how pretty Donna is"), questions
about Donna's personal life ("Ask Donna about her past romantic relationships"), and ways of
pressuring Donna for dates (e.g., "Try to convince Donna that she would enjoy having dinner with
you"). In a context where Donna had previously refused the manager's request for dates multiple

316 Bingham & Burieson

 times, these forms of harassing behavior constitute a kind of unrelenting intrusion into her personal
life. Thus, this factor was labeled, "Intrusive Harassment." The internal consistency of the nine
items loading on this factor, as assessed by Cronbach's alpha, was .89. The second factor extracted
by the analysis had an eigenvalue of 2.77 and accounted for 10.7% of the total variance. Seven
items met the .50/.30 strength/purity criterion for loading on this factor. These items attempted to
gain dates with Donna through overt, direct threats (see Table 2) (e.g., "Tell Donna you will fire her
if she doesn't start seeing you socially"), as well as through somewhat more veiled threats ("Remind
Donna that you can help her advance in the company"). Because these items involved coercive
offers to trade job benefits for social activity, we labeled this factor "Quid Pro Quo Harassment."
The seven items loading on Factor II exhibited a high degree of internal consistency; Cronbach's
alpha was .87.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

The proclivities to engage in these two forms of harassment were moderately associated. The
two oblique factors were intercorrelated at a moderate level (/• = .44). Individuals' scores for the
unweighted averages of the items composing the two factors were also moderately related (r = .40,
p < .001). There is some tendency, then, for individuals with a proclivity to engage in one form of
harassment to engage in other forms as well.
Although the tendencies to engage in the two forms of harassment were associated, there was
a very clear difference in the likelihoods with which participants reported they would engage in each
form of harassment. The unweighted mean response of the participants on the nine items
constituting the Intrusive Harassment factor was M= 2.51 (SD = 0.87) on a five-point scale (with
1 = highly unlikely to engage in the behavior and 5 = highly likely to engage in the behavior). In
contrast, the unweighted mean response of participants to the seven items composing the Quid Pro
Quo Harassment factor was M = 1.32 (SD = 0.51). The difference between these means was highly
significant, [/ (144) = 17.76, p < .001]. Thus, participants indicated they were much more likely
to engage in Intrusive Harassment than Quid Pro Quo Harassment.
Examination of the distributions for mean scores on the Intrusive and Quid Pro Quo factors
provides farther insight about the self-reported likelihood of engaging in different forms of
harassing behaviors. Our sample's mean score for Intrusive Harassment (2.51) was near the scale
midpoint of 3.0. Scores for Intrusive Harassment were normally distributed with little skewness
(skewness = -0.04). 26% of the sample scored below 2.0 on this factor, 45% scored between 2.0
and 3.0,26% scored between 3.0 and 4.0, and 3% scored above 4.0. The distribution of scores on
the Quid Pro Quo factor was very different. The sample's mean of 1.32 for Quid Pro Quo
Harassment was very near the scale floor of 1.0. Scores for Quid Pro Quo Harassment exhibited
a strong, positive skew (skewness = 2.52). Almost half of the sample (46.9%) had a score of 1.0
on this factor, indicating that they believed it was highly unlikely they would engage in any of the
seven harassing behaviors defining this factor. Only 7% of the sample scored 2.0 or above on this
factor and only 1.4% scored 3.0 or above. In sum, participants' self-reports indicated that many in
our sample exhibited some tendency to engage in Intrusive forms of harassment. Few participants,
however, indicated any likelihood of engaging in Quid Pro Quo harassment.

Assessments of Validity
Assessment of convergent validity. To assess the convergent validity of the two measures
generated by the SHPI, participants' scores for proclivities to engage in intrusive harassment and
quid pro quo harassment were correlated with several theoretically relevant assessments, including
the "condition of work" and quid pro quo harassment indices generated by Pryor's (1987) measure,
the tendency to engage in sex-role stereotyping, the endorsement of adversarial sexual beliefs,
attitudes supporting sexual harassment, tolerance for sexual harassment, tolerance of violence
toward women, and acceptance of rape myths. Weighted factor scores were used in computing the
two SHPI harassment indices employed in these correlational analyses (i.e., the items defining each

Sexual Harassment Proclivity Scale 317

 factor were standardized, weighted by their factor loadings, and then summed). The correlations
are reported in Table 3.

TABLE 3. Correlations of Proclivities to Engage in Intrusive Harassment

and Quid Pro Quo Harassment with Validity Indices
Validity Index Intrusive Quid Pro Quo
Harrassment Harrassment
Likelihood of Conditi on of Work Harrassment (Pryor) .41*** .32***
Likelihood of Quid Pro Quo Harrassment (Pryor) .37*** .46***
Sex-Role Stereotyping .12 .14*
Adversarial Sexual Beliefs .38*** .36***
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

Attitudes Supporting Sexual Harrassment .45*** .32***

Tolerance of Sexual Harrassment .40*** .19*
Tolerance of Violence Toward Women .11 .24**
Acceptance of Rape Myths .24** .32***
Need for Social Approval -.10 -.05

Note: Ns ranged from 139 to 145. *p<.05; **p< .01; ***/?<.001.

The correlations in Table 3 strongly support the convergent validity of the assessments
generated by the SHPI. Most important, perhaps, are the associations between the assessments
generated by the SHPI and Pryor's measure of harassment likelihood. The proclivity to engage in
intrusive harassment, as assessed by the SHPI, was moderately correlated with Pryor's measures of
the likelihood of engaging in condition of work harassment (r = . 41, p < .001) and quid pro quo
harassment (r = .37, p < .001). The proclivity to engage in quid pro quo harassment, as assessed
by the SHPI, was also correlated with the two harassment indices generated by Pryor's measure,
moderately for condition of work harassment (r = 32,p< .001), and more strongly for quid pro quo
(r = .46, p < .001). The assessments of the tendency to engage in quid pro quo harassment generated
by the SHPI and Pryor's measure were thus strongly associated, even given the skewed distribution
and limited variation in the SHPI measure of this attribute.
The validity of the indices generated by the SHPI were also supported by their associations with
the other measures we obtained. The proclivity to engage in intrusive harassment was significantly
associated with the endorsement of adversarial sexual beliefs (r = .38,p < .001), attitudes supporting
sexual harassment (r = .45, p < .001), tolerance for sexual harassment (r = .40, p < .001), and
acceptance of rape myths (r = .24, p < .01). The tendency to engage in sex-role stereotyping and
tolerance of violence toward women were unassociated with the proclivity to engage in intrusive
harassment. The proclivity to engage in quid pro quo harassment, as assessed by the SHPI, was
significantly associated with all the criterion measures: sex-role stereotyping (r = .14, p < .05),
endorsement of adversarial sexual beliefs (r = .36, p < .001), attitudes supporting sexual harassment
(r = .32, p < .001), tolerance for sexual harassment (r = . 19, p < .05), tolerance of violence toward
women (r = .24,/? < .01), and acceptance of rape myths (r = .32,/? < .001).
Assessment of discriminant validity. To assess the discriminant validity of our measures of the
proclivities to engage in intrusive and quid pro quo harassment, scores on these indices were
correlated with responses on the Marlowe-Crowne social desirability scale. The self-reported
tendency to behave in a socially desirable way was not significantly associated with either the self-
reported proclivity to engage in intrusive harassment (r = -.10, ns) or the self-reported proclivity to
engage in quid pro quo harassment (r = -.05, ns). These results support the discriminant validity of
the SHPI indices by demonstrating that reports about the likelihood of engaging in harassing
behaviors are not influenced by the desire to be seen as acting in socially desirable ways.

318 Bingham & Burleson

 Assessment of representational validity. Representational validity of the two subscales of the
SHPI was assessed in a separate study by examining the perceptions of potential (female) targets
of harassment. The degree to which the women perceived each behavior included on the SHPI as
objectionable was assessed by averaging the ratings for the inappropriateness, offensiveness, and
harassing nature of the behavior. Objectionability scores for the behaviors composing the intrusive
harassment subscale in the main study were then averaged over the 9 items defining this subscale.
Similarly, objectionability scores for the behaviors constituting the quid pro quo harassment
subscale were averaged over the 7 items defining this subscale. Internal consistency (Chronbach's
alpha) for the 9 items assessing intrusive harassment was .83; for the 7 items assessing quid pro quo
harassment the alpha coefficient was .62.
All 26 behaviors included on the SHPI were perceived as objectionable (with means above 3.00),
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

providing firm support for representational validity. The objectionability ratings for the 9 intrusive
harassment behaviors ranged from 3.14 to 4.50; the objectionability ratings for the 7 quid pro quo
harassment behaviors ranged from 4.27 to 4.98. Quid pro quo harassment (M=4.66) was perceived
as significantly more objectionable [/ (100) = 13.45,/? < .0001] than intrusive harassment (M=3.90).
Whether a woman had experienced sexual harassment in the past did not significantly affect her
perceptions of intrusive harassment /F(2,99) = 1.24,/? > .29] or quid pro quo harassment [F(2,99)
= 2.30,p>.ll].
To determine the extent to which men reported they would be likely to use "date-getting
strategies" that women perceived as objectionable, a supplemental analysis was carried out. The
mean likelihood of use rating for each of the 26 SHPI items generated by the male sample was
correlated with the mean "objectionability" rating for these items generated by the female sample.
A strong, negative correlation was observed, r = -.73, p < .001. The negative sign of this correlation
indicates that men, as a group, reported they were less likely to use those date-getting strategies
women perceived as highly objectionable.

Relationships between Sexual Harassment Proclivity and

Indices of Communicative and Heterosocial Competence
Our final set of analyses focused on assessing the theoretical claim that males who had poor
dating skills and who found interpersonal communication anxiety-provoking and unrewarding would
report a greater likelihood of engaging in sexually harassing behaviors. To evaluate this hypothesis,
participants' scores on the two harassment indices generated by the SHPI were correlated with
assessments of dating competence and unwillingness to communicate. These correlations are
reported in Table 4.
The correlations in Table 4 provide some support for the hypothesized connection between
dating competence and the proclivity to harass. Specifically, the proclivity to engage in intrusive
harassment was significantly associated with dating satisfaction (r = -.23,/? < .01), dating suspicion
(r = -.15, p < .05), dating apprehension (r- -.14,/? < .05), and was marginally associated with
general dating competence (r = -. 11, /? < .09). The proclivity to engage in quid pro quo harassment
was significantly associated only with dating suspicion (r = -.22, p < .01). The negative signs of
these correlations indicate that individuals who saw themselves as less satisfied with and more
suspicious and apprehensive about dating exhibited a greater proclivity to engage in harassment.
There also was some support for the hypothesized relationship between the unwillingness to
engage in interpersonal communication and the proclivity to harass. The proclivity to engage in
intrusive harassment was significantly associated with anxiety about engaging in interpersonal
communication (r = .20, p < .01) but only marginally associated with the degree to which
interpersonal interactions were found unrewarding (r = .11, p < .07). In contrast, the proclivity to
engage in quid pro quo harassment was only marginally associated with communication anxiety (r
= .13,/? < .09) but significantly associated with the degree to which interpersonal interactions were

Sexual Harassment Proclivity Scale 319

 found unrewarding (r = .26, p < .001). Thus, those anxious about communicating are more likely
to engage in intrusive harassment while those who find communication unrewarding are more likely
to engage in quid pro quo harassment.

TABLE 4: Correlations of Proclivities to Engage in Intrusive Harassment and Quid Pro

Quo Harassment with Assessments of Dating and Communicative Competence
Competence Index Instrusive Quid Pro Quo
Harrassment Harrassment
Dating Frequency .08 .01
Dating Satisfaction .23** -.06
Dating suspicion .15* -.22**
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

Dating Anxiety .14* -.03

Partner Orientation .05 .04
Self-Rated Attractiveness .00 -.04
Overall Dating Competence -.11 -.06
Communication Anxiety .20** .13
Unrewarding Communication .11 .26***

Note: Ns ranged from 139 to 145. *p< .05; ** p < .01; ***p < .001.

Discussion
This study developed and assessed the validity of a self-report measure of sexual harassment
proclivities in men, and examined these proclivities in relation to men's reports of their
communication and dating competence. Analyses showed that 16 of the 26 SHPI items defined two
distinct aspects of sexual harassment, "quid pro quo" harassment (involving explicit or implied job-
related rewards and punishments) and "intrusive" harassment (including unrelenting date requests,
sexual advances, and unwelcome personal attention). The items composing the two subscales of the
SHPI demonstrated high internal consistency and performed well in our assessments of convergent
validity. The convergent validity of the quid pro quo scale was consistently supported through
expected correlations with all of the attitudinal measures we included, and the intrusive scale was
correlated with all but two of the attitudinal measures. The magnitude of the correlations we
obtained for quid pro quo harassment may have been attenuated by the skewed distribution of scores
on this scale.
Our assessment of representational validity demonstrated that women who are potential victims
of sexual harassment are likely to perceive the behaviors included in the SHPI as harassing,
offensive, and inappropriate. The behaviors defining the subscales of both intrusive harassment and
quid pro harassment were perceived as objectionable, with quid pro quo harassment being perceived
as more objectionable than intrusive harassment. A woman's prior experience with sexual
harassment did not appear to influence her perceptions that the behaviors included in the SHPI were
objectionable. Together, these findings strongly suggest that the SHPI focuses on behaviors that are
likely to be perceived by women as sexual harassment, particularly in the stimulus situation
provided.
We also found that there was a strong negative correlation between men's likelihood of use
ratings for the SHPI items and women's evaluations of the objectionability of these items. This
negative correlation indicates that men are less likely to use behaviors women perceive as more
objectionable (and more likely to use the behaviors women view as less objectionable). There are
several possible explanations for this result. Most men may find highly "objectionable" behaviors
such as quid pro quo forms of harassment just as distasteful as do women, and hence they report

320 Bingham & Burleson

 refraining from engaging in them because they view them as inappropriate. It is also possible that
most men sense that women find quid pro quo forms of harassment highly objectionable, and thus
avoid using them. Whether men actually view the behaviors depicted in the SHPI as "sexual
harassment" is an interesting question that should be pursued in future research. But regardless of
how men view the SHPI items, our findings indicate that these behaviors are likely to be experienced
as sexual harassment by women who might be targets of them.
The validity assessments conducted in the present study suggest that the SHPI may be a
valuable research tool. The instrument is simple to administer, can be completed by subjects in a
relatively short time, and is easily scored. Although tests of validity reported in the current study
must be supplemented by additional validation research, especially work directly examining
behavior, it appears that the SHPI may be useful in differentiating those with greater and lesser
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

proclivities to engage in some forms of sexual harassment. Identifying individuals who report a
proclivity to harass others can be an important step toward studying why people engage in sexual
harassment and the kinds of experiences that facilitate or may inhibit this proclivity.
We would caution, however, that while the SHPI has promise as a useful tool in research
exploring correlates and predictors of the likelihood of engaging in harassing behavior, it would be
completely inappropriate to use this instrument in any diagnostic or screening efforts on the basis
of the data reported in this study. Abundant evidence specifically demonstrating the validity of the
SHPI as a screening tool would need to be presented, critically examined, and replicated before any
such uses should be contemplated. Even with ample evidence of behavioral validity in place, the
use of the SHPI for screening or diagnostic purposes would be controversial. The business practice
of using various personality tests to screen out "undesirable" prospective employees has grown in
popularity in recent years and has come under attack on legal and ethical grounds ("Digging into
Employee Backgrounds," 1994, p. 1G).
The SHPI differs in important respects from the other available instrument for assessing the
likelihood of engaging in sexual harassment. Pryor's (1987) Likelihood of Sexually Harassing scale
measures the likelihood of engaging in a small number of behaviors in several similar situations.
In contrast, the SHPI examines the likelihood of engaging in a broader variety of behaviors within
a single situation. Both of these approaches have value. However, the moderate magnitude of the
associations among the indices generated by these two instruments suggests that they are not parallel
measures and will not yield isomorphic results. Additional work devoted to developing an
instrument that combines the strengths of both the SHPI and the LSH to assess the likelihood of
engaging in a variety of harassing behaviors in multiple situations is needed.
Forms of sexual harassment that are not included in either the SHPI or the LSH should also be
examined in future research. For example, both instruments are limited by their focus on coercive
"seduction" scenarios (Clair, 1994) involving attractive women who have less power than the
respondent. Neither instrument taps more complex and subtly manipulative forms of sexual
harassment, and both instruments fail to include items tapping crude and degrading behaviors that
readily create a hostile environment in the workplace, such as grabbing women's breasts and obscene
name-calling. It may also be useful to include "non-harassment" items (e.g., "Keep all future
interactions with Donna focused on work") to more specifically assess respondents' proclivity NOT
to engage in sexually harassing behaviors. These limitations should be addressed in subsequent
work directed at producing improved measures.
Seven percent of our sample indicated that there was at least some likelihood that they would
engage in quid pro quo forms of harassment (i.e., they had mean scores of 2.0 or higher on the quid
pro quo factor). Although this percentage is small in an absolute sense, any number of respondents
who report even a slight likelihood of engaging in such blatant sexual harassment is disturbing. This
finding suggests the need for universities to continue to inform students about what constitutes
sexual harassment and its illegality. Since the males who participated in this study can be expected

Sexual Harassment Proclivity Scale 321

 to move from the university into full-time employment within the next few years, the finding also
suggests the need for strong educational and enforcement efforts by organizations.
Perhaps even more disturbing is the relatively large percentage of our sample which indicated
that they would be likely to engage in intrusive forms of harassment. Nearly 70% of our sample
indicated some likelihood of engaging in intrusive harassment (i.e., had a mean score of 2.0 or above
on this factor), while 29% indicated that they would be more likely than not to engage in intrusive
harassment (i.e., had mean scores of 3.0 or above). Men's more frequent reports of this form of
sexual harassment correspond with previous research indicating that unwelcome expressions of
sexual and romantic interest are among the forms of sexual harassment women experience most
frequently (e.g., Bingham & Scherer, 1993).
There are several interpretations that can be given to the finding that a relatively large
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

percentage of men indicate that they would be likely to engage in intrusive harassment. It is possible
that large percentages of men are comfortable with admitting that they would engage in the intrusive
harassment behaviors. But it is also possible — and perhaps even likely — that many men in our
sample did not view the behaviors encompassed by the intrusive harassment factor as sexual
harassment. Numerous studies (e.g., Collins & Blodgett, 1981; Powell, 1986; Remland & Jones,
1985) have found that men and women differ in what they regard as sexual harassment, and these
differences are especially sharp with respect to the "milder" forms of harassment such as those
represented on our intrusive harassment factor (e.g., Gutek, Morasch, & Cohen, 1983; Hemphill &
Pfieffer, 1986). Even in a context where a woman has repeatedly declined offers of dates, many
men may not see behaviors such as continuing to ask for dates, attempting to discuss details of her
personal life, or making comments about her appearance as forms of sexual harassment.6 These men
need to be educated that these behaviors ARE often experienced by women as harassing, particularly
in situations where the perpetrator occupies a more powerful position than the woman or where a
woman has indicated - explicitly or implicitly ~ that she isn't interested in pursuing a relationship.
In this context, we note with mixed feelings that our measures of the proclivity to sexually
harass exhibited discriminate validity by being uncorrelated with the self-reported tendency to
engage in socially desirable behaviors. The lack of association between social desirability and our
indices of harassment proclivity is good news from a psychometric viewpoint. However, the
nonsignificant correlations observed here also mean that men who depict themselves as acting in a
socially desirable way are not less likely to avoid acting in a harassing way toward a female
subordinate. That is, even men with a high need for social approval are no less likely to report
engaging in sexually harassing behaviors. This suggests that either (a) men view sexual harassment
as socially disapproved conduct, but do not recognize the behaviors on the SHPI subscales as forms
of sexual harassment, or (b) these behaviors may be recognized as forms of harassment, but are not
viewed as socially disapproved conduct. Both of these possibilities reinforce the need to educate
men about the kinds of behavior that can constitute harassment and the negative effects of
harassment on individuals, institutions, and society. They also suggest the need to develop a social
consensus that harassing actions are harmful, socially disapproved forms of behavior.
Future work examining sexual harassment proclivities should address harassment performed
by women as well as men, since surveys indicate that women also are perpetrators of sexual
harassment. A preliminary study (Bingham & Burleson, 1990) employing a version of the SHPI
developed specifically for female respondents indicated that some women do exhibit a proclivity
to sexually harass, although women reported significantly lower proclivities than men. Women with
traditional sex-role attitudes also exhibited higher proclivities than nontraditional women (Bingham
& Burleson, 1990). Findings such as these may suggest ways to refine socio-cultural explanations
for sexual harassment, which associate the performance of harassment with masculine socialization
and power.
Our findings partially supported the relationships we predicted between the proclivity to
sexually harass and communication and heterosocial competence. Certain difficulties in

322 Bingham & Burleson

 communicating and in initiating and building relationships with women appear to be associated with
men's proclivities to sexually harass. Males who were more likely to report some likelihood of
engaging in quid pro quo sexual harassment tended to be more suspicious of dating and viewed
interpersonal communication as less rewarding. Males who reported a greater likelihood of
engaging in "intrusive" forms of sexual harassment tended to be less satisfied with their dating
activities, more suspicious and apprehensive about dating, and experienced greater anxiety about
communication. These men's attitudes toward dating and interpersonal communication may reflect
negative experiences and socialization processes which, perhaps, have taught them to view these
activities as manipulative, deceptive, anxiety-producing, and potentially dangerous. Further, our
findings appear to conflict with some recent research on rape indicating that rapists may not differ
from other men in terms of heterosexual relationships and psychological adjustment (Segel-
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

Evens,1987). Since sexual harassment is often compared to rape (e.g., Jensen & Gutek, 1982), our
results suggest an avenue for research exploring the similarities and differences between these two
kinds of sexual coercion.
Although causal relationships cannot be inferred from our findings, it is possible that
communication and dating incompetencies contribute to sexual harassment proclivities. Negative
attitudes about dating and communication, particularly when they are combined with some of the
"hypermasculine" (Wood, 1994a, p. 254) attitudes and beliefs examined in this study such as the
acceptance of violence against women, may cultivate men's tendencies to engage in quid pro quo
harassment. The relationships we found for the "intrusive" form of sexual harassment may suggest
a different type of individual who engages in sexual harassment partially because he lacks the
interpersonal communication skills necessary to develop mutually satisfying relationships with
women. Skill deficits may be most likely to foster intrusive sexual harassment when they are present
in men who view relationships with women as suspicious and adversarial and who believe in myths
about sexual coercion. Together, these findings support Pryor's (1987) notion that different forms
of sexual harassment may be associated with distinct personality profiles.
Our findings should not be interpreted as suggesting that sexual harassment is merely an
outgrowth of incompetent communication styles and bad dating experiences. Sexual harassment is
a form of sexual coercion. The causes, consequences, and strategies for alleviating sexual
harassment are very complex and cannot be reduced to singular explanations. However, our
findings suggest that communication and dating competence might be important contributors to at
least some sexual harassment in some situations. Education and training programs designed to
improve interpersonal communication and heterosocial skills may reduce the proclivity in some men
to engage in particular forms of sexual harassment. Additional studies testing directional hypotheses
are needed to support or refute these potential implications.

NOTES
1
We might also ask why some women engage in sexual harassment. Our focus in this paper is the sexual
harassment of women by men because research consistently indicates that most sexual harassment is committed
by men, and that women are usually the target (McKinney & Maroules, 1991). However, women do sexually
harass men, and same-sex sexual harassment also occurs (e.g., U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board, 1981).
Measures of these different types of harassment require modified instruments.
2
The LSH also asks respondents how likely they would be to invite the woman to join them for dinner
to discuss the job- or task-related matter, although Pryor does not include this item in his analyses.
3
Sexual harassment includes quid pro quo harassment (explicit or implied threats or promises in exchange
for sexual activity); sexual and social propositions and advances; sexual comments, jokes, gestures, and
innuendos; hostile attacks; and sexist remarks and behaviors (e.g., Bingham & Scherer, 1993; Gruber, 1992).
4
The SHPI was designed to elicit honest self-reports of harassing behavior in a manner that would not
make respondents feel threatened or uneasy. There are obvious difficulties in obtaining honest self-reports of
socially undesirable behaviors. Sudman & Bradburn (1982) show that such reports are powerfully affected
by the way questions are phrased. The SHPI implemented four suggestions offered by Sudman and Bradburn

Sexual Harassment Proclivity Scale 323

 that tend to increase the likelihood of obtaining honest responses: (a) familiar words were used in the items,
(b) the items were fairly long, (c) the items were presented in a way that assumed the normalcy of the socially
undesirable behavior, and (d) authority or institutional power could be used to justify the behavior depicted
in the items. The SHPI also attempted to reduce threat by asking people to respond to a hypothetical situation
rather than offer reports about actual behavior in a past situation, and by representing the study as an
examination of dating behaviors rather than sexual harassment.
5
The full text for each of the 3 situations is available from the authors on request.
6
This interpretation of our findings parallels recent research on rape, which indicates that among college
men who admit performing acts that meet the legal definition of rape, 80% do not believe they have committed
rape (Wood, 1994a).

REFERENCES
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

Bingham, S. G. (1996). Sexual harassment: On the job, on the campus. In J. T. Wood (Ed.). Gendered
Relationships (pp.223-252). Mountain View, CA: Mayfield.
Bingham, S. G. (Ed.) (1994). Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice. Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Bingham, S. G. (1992). Attitudes supporting sexual harassment. Unpublished manuscript, University of
Nebraska at Omaha.
Bingham, S. G., & Burleson, B. R. (1990, November). The sexual harassment proclivity index. Paper
presented at the Speech Communication Association conference, Chicago, IL.
Bingham, S. G., & Scherer, L. L. (1993). Factors associated with responses to sexual harassment and
satisfaction with outcome. Sex Roles, 29, 239-269.
Burgoon, J. K. (1976). The unwillingness to communicate scale: Development and validation.
Communication Monographs, 13, 60-69.
Burt, M. R. (1980). Cultural myths and supports for rape. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38,
217-230.
Clair, R. P. (1994). Hegemony and harassment: A discursive practice. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.),
Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 59-70). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Collins, E. G. C , & Blodgett, T. B . (1981). Sexual harassment: Some see i t . . . Some won't. Harvard
Business Review, 59, 76-95.
Crowne, D. P., & Marlowe, D. (1960). A new scale of social desirability independent of psychopathology.
Journal of Consulting Psychology, 24, 349-354.
Digging into employee background can be dark side of hiring. (1994, May). Omaha World-Herald, p. 1G.
Dziech, B. W., & Weiner, L. (1990). The lecherous professor: Sexual harassment on campus (2nd ed.).
Champaign: University of Illinois Press.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (1980). Discrimination because of sex under Title VII of the
Civil Rights Act of 1964, as amended: Adoption of final interpretive guidelines. Federal Register, 45,
74676-74677.
Gilsdorf, J. W. (1990). Sexual harassment as a liability issue in communication. Bulletin of the Association
for Business Communication, 53, 68-75.
Grauerholz, E. (1994). Gender socialization and communication: The inscription of sexual harassment in
social life. In S. G. Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 33-
44). Westport, CT: Praeger.
Gruber, J. E. (1992). A typology of personal and environmental sexual harassment: Research and policy
implications for the 1990s. Sex Roles, 26, 447-464.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gutek, B. A., Morasch, B., & Cohen, A. G. (1983). Interpreting social-sexual behavior in a work setting.
Journal of Vocational Behavior, 22, 30-48.
Hughes, J. O., & Sandier, B. R. (1986). In case of sexual harassment. A guide for women students.
Washington, D.C.: Project on the Status and Education of Women, Association of American Colleges.
Jensen, I. W., & Gutek, B. A. (1982). Attributions and assignment of responsibility in sexual harassment.
Journal of Social Issues, 38, 121-136.
Keyton, J. (1996). Sexual harassment: A multidisciplinary synthesis and critique. In B. R. Burleson (Ed.),
Communication yearbook 19 (pp.92-155). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

324 Bingham & Burleson

 Kreps, G. L. (1993). Introduction: Sexual harassment and communication. In G. L. Kreps (Ed.). Sexual
harassment: Communication implications (pp. 1-5). Cresskill, NJ: Hampton.
Lott, B., Reilly, M. E., & Howard, D. R. (1989). Sexual assault and harassment: A campus community case
study. Signs, 8, 296-319.
MacKinnon, C. A. (1979). Sexual harassment of working women. A case of sex discrimination. New Haven:
Yale University Press.
McCroskey, J. C., & Richmond, V. P. (1987). Willingness to communicate. In J. C. McCroskey & J. A. Daly
(Eds.), Personality and interpersonal communication (pp. 129-156). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
McKinney, K. & Maroules, N. (1991). Sexual harassment. In E. Grauerholz & M. A. Koralewski (Eds.),
Sexual coercion (pp. 29-44). Lexington, MA: Lexington Books.
Powell, G. N. (1986). Effects of sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 14,
9-19.
Downloaded by [UZH Hauptbibliothek / Zentralbibliothek Zürich] at 15:53 27 December 2014

Prisbell, M. (1987). Factors affecting college students' perceptions of satisfaction in and frequency of dating.
Psychological Reports, 60, 659-644.
Prisbell, M. (1988). Dating competence as related to levels of loneliness. Communication Reports, 1, 54-59.
Pryor, J. B. (1987). Sexual harassment proclivities in men. Sex Roles, 17, 269-290.
Pryor, J. B., & Lewis, M. (1990). Interpersonal power strategies used by men who sexually harass.
Unpublished manuscript, Illinois State University.
Pryor, J. B., & Stoller, L. M. (1990). Sexual cognition processes in men who are high in the likelihood to
sexually harass: Evidence for a sexuality/dominance schema. Unpublished manuscript, Illinois State
University.
Remland, M. S., & Jones, T. S. (1985). Sex differences, communication consistency, and judgments of sexual
harassment in a performance appraisal interview. The Southern Speech Communication Journal, 50, 156-
176.
Segal-Evans, K. (1987). Rape prevention and masculinity. In F. Abbot (Ed.), New men, new minds: Breaking
male tradition (pp. 117-121). Freedom, CA: Crossing Press.
Sudman, S., & Bradburn, N. M. (1982). Asking questions. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Wood, J. T. (1993). Naming and interpreting sexual harassment: A conceptual framework for scholarship.
In G. L. Kreps (Ed.), Sexual harassment: Communication implications (pp. 9-26). Cresskill, NJ:
Hampton.
Wood, J. T. (1994a). Gendered Lives: Communication, Gender, and Culture. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
Wood, J. T. (1994b). Saying makes it so: The discursive construction of sexual harassment. In S. G.
Bingham (Ed.), Conceptualizing sexual harassment as discursive practice (pp. 17-30). Westport, CT:
Praeger.
Zalk, S. R. (1990). Men in the academy: A psychological profile of harassment. In M. A. Paludi (Ed.), Ivory
power: Sexual harassment on campus (pp. 141-175). Albany, NY: SUNY.

Sexual Harassment Proclivity Scale 325