WHEN IS IT HARASSMENT TO ASK FOR A SECOND DATE?
IT DEPENDS ON WHO YOU ARE ASKING
by Maria Rotundo, Ph.D., Dung-Hanh Nguyen, and Paul R. Sackett, Ph.D.
An analysis of 62 studies that looked at how men and women
define sexual harassment found little difference in what both genders
believe constitutes the more serious types of harassment, but did find
gender-based disagreement about the more subtle forms of harassing behavior.
These findings call into question the "reasonable woman" standard still used
by some courts to decide harassment cases, especially in cases involving the
less obvious forms of harassment, according to a study in the Journal of Applied Psychology, published by the American
Psychological Association (APA).
It is well known that men and women sometimes differ in their perceptions of
what constitutes sexual harassment. Research indicates that women tend to
perceive a broader range of behaviors as harassing than men do. That
prompted courts to adopt the reasonable woman standard, requiring judges and
juries to adopt the perspective of the harassees, which often tend to be
women, when evaluating the circumstances in a sexual harassment claim.
However, some say such a standard may be unfair to men because it does not
consider their viewpoint when deciding if sexual harassment has occurred. In
recent years most courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have gone back
to consistently using the "reasonable person" standard, but the debate over
which standard should be used continues.
In their meta-analysis involving 33,164 participants in 62 studies, authors
Maria Rotundo, Ph.D., of the University of Toronto, Dung-Hanh Nguyen,
graduate student at Michigan State University, and Paul R. Sackett, Ph.D.,
of the University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus, found evidence that
women do perceive a broader range of social-sexual behaviors as harassing.
However, the study found that these gender differences are not large, and
that the difference occurs for less extreme and more ambiguous behaviors
like derogatory attitudes and dating pressure rather than for sexual
propositions or sexual coercion.
"Men and women agree that sexual coercion and sexual propositions constitute
sexual harassment," say the authors. "However, they do not necessarily agree
that sex-stereotyped jokes or repeated requests for dates after refusal do.
Therefore, a woman may perceive that sexual harassment has occurred after a
number of the latter types of social-sexual behaviors have taken place,
whereas a man may be less inclined to do so." For example, men may interpret
repeated requests for dates as flattery, whereas women may perceive it as
something that may escalate to harassment.
The origin of these gender differences--whether innate or a product of
socialization and a person's value system--is not clear, according to the
researchers. "Men and women may be socialized to perceive different
social-sexual behaviors as appropriate or inappropriate. Therefore, it is
conceivable that a series of behaviors may be perceived as flattery by one
group and as harassment by another solely on the basis of one's value system
or how one is socialized." Also, prior experiences with such behaviors that
eventually led to harassment may cause people to interpret isolated
occurrences of social-sexual behaviors more seriously, fearing that they
will escalate to sexual harassment, say the authors.
Another factor found to moderate the size of the gender differences,
according to the study, is the status of the harasser. Men and women
demonstrated greater agreement as to whether behaviors constitute sexual
harassment when the harasser is in a position of higher authority than the
harassee. However, when the harasser was a peer, coworker or fellow student,
men and women disagreed more often on what constituted actual harassment.
Reference: "A Meta-Analytic Review of Gender Differences in Perceptions of
Sexual Harassment," Maria Rotundo, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities
Campus, Dung-Hanh Nguyen, California State University, Long Beach, and Paul
R. Sackett, University of Minnesota, Twin Cities Campus; Journal of Applied
Psychology, Vol. 86, No. 5.
11/08/01
Lead author Maria Rotundo, Ph.D., can be reached
at (416) 946-5060
Back
|