This article was downloaded by: [Memorial University of

Newfoundland]
On: 30 January 2015, At: 03:54
Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number:
1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street,
London W1T 3JH, UK

Basic and Applied Social

Psychology
Publication details, including instructions
for authors and subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/hbas20

Women's Responses to
Sexual Harassment: A
Multivariate Analysis
James E. Gruber & Michael D. Smith
Published online: 07 Jun 2010.

To cite this article: James E. Gruber & Michael D. Smith (1995) Women's
Responses to Sexual Harassment: A Multivariate Analysis, Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 17:4, 543-562, DOI: 10.1207/s15324834basp1704_7

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1704_7

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 [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015
 BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 1995, 17(4), 543-562
Copyright o 1995, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Women's Responses to Sexual

Harassment: A Multivariate Analysis
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

James E . Gruber
Department of Sociology
University of Michigan
Michael D. Smith
LaMarsh Research Program on Violence
and Conflict Resolution
York University

The response patterns of women who had experienced sexual harassment were
analyzed. The harassment targets were part of a large, representative sample
of Canadian women (n = 1,990) who were interviewed about their experi-
ences with public or workplace harassment. Descriptive analyses revealed that
women generally gave fairly nonassertive responses to harassment particularly
when (a) the harassment was not severe, (b) the source was not a supervisor or
employer, (c) there were few workplace policies or procedures on sexual
harassment, (d) their occupational group consisted mostly of other women, or
(e) they did not believe that sexual harassment was a power issue. Multivariate
analyses revealed that harassment severity, source of harassment, and being in
an occupation in which women were a threatening minority were the strongest
predictors of response assertiveness. Also, harassment severity and source of
harassment were the strongest predictors of women who quit their jobs due to
harassment. The nonassertiveness of women's responses is discussed in terms
of cultural and organizational roles and women's attempts to manage strained
work relationships. Women and men are socialized to expect that women will
manage emotional and sexual interactions between the two sexes. These
expectations may spill over into the workplace and result in sexual harassment
unless there is a concerted effort by the work organization to combat such
problems. Policy implications are also discussed.

The confirmation hearings of Judge Clarence Thomas served as a watershed

of public opinion about sexual harassment. Thousands of women re-
Requests for reprints should be sent to James E. Gruber, Behavioral Sciences Department,
University of Michigan, Dearborn, MI 48128.
 544 GRUBER AND SMITH

sponded to the hearings by calling women's organizations, support groups,

and sexual assault hotlines to tell their own stories of harassment. One of
the issues that emerged from the hearings was the appropriateness of Dr.
Anita Hill's responses to Thomas. The general perception of the public was
that Hill did not respond in an assertive or timely manner; consequently,
her inaction reduced her credibility as a victim of hostile and offensive
behavior.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

The public reaction to Hill's responses to Thomas is understandable given

the body of analogue research in which respondents were asked to indicate
how they would, or a hypothetical recipient should, respond to different
forms of sexual harassment. The women in studies by Collins and Blodgett
(1981), Dunwoody-Miller and Gutek (1985), and Terpstra and Baker (1989)
advocated direct, assertive responses to harassers, such as verbally con-
fronting or reporting the person. The beliefs about the social benefits of
assertive behavior -that the harasser will cease the unwelcomed advances or
that the organization will respond quickly and appropriately-creates
substantial problems for real harassment recipients. Less assertive responses
by actual harassment recipients set the stage for a blaming-the-victim
interpretation of the interaction: The overtures by the harasser were not
really unwelcomed as the recipient alleged, the problem would not have
gotten out of hand had the recipient responded appropriately initially, or
the recipient was just trying to get the alleged harasser in trouble by
claiming sexual harassment. However, as Fitzgerald and Shullman (1993)
noted, the manner in which actual recipients of harassment react is
substantially different from what research respondents believe is an appro-
priate response.
In this article, we present an analysis of the types of responses given by
harassment targets and explore the factors that predict differences in
response among women. Two basic questions focus our research: How do
women respond to unwanted sexual attention? And which women give or
which work settings seem to encourage assertive responses to harassment?

WOMEN'S RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT

Research over the past 15 years has provided clear evidence that women
generally give fairly nonassertive responses to their harassers. A review of
10 studies by Gruber (1989) found that only 10% to 15% of women either
responded assertively to or reported the harasser. The nonassertive feature
of most harassment responses has been found in a variety of occupational
and workplace contexts. Ignoring or pretending not to notice the harass-
ment is a common response (Cammaert, 1985; McKinney, 1990; Stringer-
Moore, 1982; Verba, DiNunzio, & Spaulding, 1983), as is avoiding the
 RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT 545

harasser. With regard to the latter, Culbertson et al. (1992) found that over
half of the female Naval officers in their sample responded in this manner.
Other studies reviewed by Gruber (1989) revealed that between one fifth and
one third of all responses were of this type. Women often tried to defuse a
difficult situation by making a joke of the harassment (CHRC, 1983;
Maypole, 1986; Ragins & Scandina, 1992; U.S. Merit Systems Protection
Board WSMSPB], 1981, 1988) or, less frequently, playing along with it
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

(Gruber & Bjorn, 1982; McIntyre, 1982; USMSPB, 1981). Studies also
indicate that if a woman spoke to someone about the harassment, it was
more apt to be a friend or coworker than a supervisor or union official
(Canadian Human Rights Commission [CHRC], 1983; Gruber & Bjorn,
1982; Maypole, 1986; Webking, 1979; USMSPB, 1981, 1988).
The more assertive responses, such as direct confrontation or reporting,
which the public perceives to be the most appropriate avenues of retort,
constitute a minority of responses among actual recipients of harassment.
Less than 10% of women in public sector jobs (McIntyre, 1982; Stringer-
Moore, 1982; USMSPB, 1981), manufacturing (Gruber & Bjorn, 1982),
social work (Maypole, 1986), or higher education (Carnmaert, 1985;
McKinney, 1990, 1994; Verba et al., 1983) reported the harassment.
Compared with other research, the proportion of enlisted women in the
Navy who complained formally about sexual harassment -24% -is unusu-
ally high (Culbertson et al., 1992). When the harassment is intolerable or
when the organization does not respond appropriatelyto mitigate the harm,
women quit their jobs. A survey of federal employees estimated that 36,000
women had quit their jobs as a result of harassment (USMSPB, 1988). Two
representative cross-sectional surveys of working women, which asked for
this type of information, found that one of seven respondents had left a job
due to harassment (Gutek, 1985; Loy & Stewart, 1984). Reports by state
agencies that handle discrimination complaints have revealed between one
quarter and two fifths of the complainants were forced out of their jobs
(Coles, 1986; Crull, 1982).
Recently, Fitzgerald, Gold, Brock, and Gelfand (1995) developed a
typology of women's responses to sexual harassment that presents internally
focused and externally focused strategies. The former, which are charac-
terized by the target's attempts to deal with the cognitions and emotions
associated with the harassment experience, include five strategies: detach-
ment, denial, relabeling, illusory control, and endurance. The latter, which
attempt to deal with the harassment by manipulating the work environ-
ment, also include five strategies: avoidance, confrontation, seeking
institutional/organizational relief, seeking social support, and appease-
ment. Gruber's (1989) typology which includes avoidance (nonrecognition,
obstruction, and self-removal), defusion (masking and social support),
negotiation (direct requests and professional mediation), and confrontation
 (personal responses and power structure) parallel Fitzgerald et al.'s exter-
nally focused strategies. Their development of internally focused strategies
is a unique contribution to our understanding of the cognitive or emotional
aspects of women's responses to sexual harassment.

THE SOCIAL AND EMPLOYMENT BASES OF

Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

HARASSMENT RESPONSES

Why do women give generally nonassertive responses to sexual harassment?

One factor appears to be the adoption of cultural stereotypes about
harassment or, more generally, about aggression that victimizes women.
Some women feel embarrassed by (Culbertson et al., 1992) or blame
themselves for (Jensen & Gutek, 1982) the harassment. Women who feel
ashamed or humiliated are not apt to bring public attention to themselves.
In some instances, a lack of assertiveness may be attributable to the
ambiguity of some types of sexual interaction (Gruber & Bjorn, 1982). In
other cases, women may fear that assertive responses will unduly harm the
harasser (Gutek, 1985). Finally, the use of nonconfrontational methods
may be related to the severity of harassment. Because the more severe forms
of harassment (e.g., touching, bribery, and assault) are fairly infrequent in
comparison to the less severe forms, such as sexual jokes or date requests
(see Gruber, 1990, for a review), it is understandable that most responses
are nonassertive given the correlation between severity and response
(Fitzgerald, Hulin, & Drasgow, in press; Gruber & Bjorn, 1986; Terpstra &
Baker, 1989).
Women's attitudes have been shown to have some influence on harass-
ment responses. Women who perceive men's behavior as sexual harassment
are more apt to report it (Fitzgerald, Weitzman, Gold, & Omerod, 1988;
Koss, 1990; Schneider, 1982). It is clear, however, that both perception of
behaviors as harassment and subsequent reporting of such conduct is not
related to personality characteristics or to oversensitivity toward sexual
interaction (Konrad & Gutek, 1986; Mazer & Percival, 1989; Powell, 1986;
Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller, 1993). It is possible, however, that targets may be
more apt to report harassment when they perceive a notable violation of
role expectations (McKinney, 1992). Gruber and Bjorn (1986) presented a
personal resources model to explain the influence of women's attitudes on
harassment responses. Specifically, they argued that personal resources,
such as self-esteem or locus of control, were forms of power that could be
tapped by women during social interaction to produce positive social and
psychological outcomes. They found that self-esteem and life satisfaction
were significant predictors: Women who saw themselves in a favorable light
or were generally content with their lives were more apt than other women
 RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT 547

to respond in an assertive manner to harassment. The research of Brooks

and Perot (1991) provides modest support for the personal resources model:
Women who espoused a feminist ideology were more likely than other
women to report incidents of gender harassment.
One of the most significant factors that predicts women's responses to
harassment is fear of a negative change in work or the work environment.
Many women use less assertive responses in order to manage the harassment
in a way that does not disrupt work routines or relationships (Gruber &
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

Bjorn, 1982; Gutek, 1985; Sheppard, 1989). The intent of many women
using this strategy is that the harasser will lose interest or that he will come
to his senses (Gruber & Bjorn, 1982; Gutek & Koss, 1993; McKinney, 1994)
before a confrontation is necessary. The attempt to manage a difficult work
situation is undoubtedly prompted by fears of retaliation for complaining
or being a poor sport (Culbertson et al., 1992; Coles, 1986; Gruber & Bjorn,
1982; Gutek, 1985).
Many women feel that being assertive is too risky (Biaggio et al., 1990)
even when being sexually assaulted (Schneider, 1991). This perception of
risk is influenced by women's organizational power and by the sexual
climate of the organization. Women with substantial job skills or tenure,
whose workplaces were not disproportionately male, or who were harassed
by peers rather than supervisors opted to confront the harasser or to report
him (Gruber & Bjorn, 1986). Also, organizations that treat women who
complain about harassment as whistleblowers (Miceli & Near, 1988; Near &
Miceli, 1987) or in which supervisors either actively encourage or react
indifferently to harassment (Pryor et al., 1993) do not create an environ-
ment where assertive responses are welcomed. Fitzgerald et al. (in press) and
Hesson-McInnis and Fitzgerald (1992) presented a clearer understanding of
risk. In Fitzgerald et al.3 study, the type of response that research
participants gave to depictions of sexual harassment in 12 vignettes was
correlated with the perceived degree of risk a woman assumed if she
complained, the likelihood her complaint would be taken seriously, and the
degree to which the harasser would be punished. In Hesson-McInnis and
Fitzgerald's study, the data from a survey of federal employees were
reanalyzed, and they found that women experienced negative job-related,
psychological, and health outcomes when they responded assertively to
both severe and less severe forms of sexual harassment. Given the costs of
assertive responses, it is not surprising that most women use avoidance or
defusion (Gruber, 1989) to cope with harassment.

RESEARCH FOCUS
Previous research indicates that women's responses to sexual harassment
are based on three sets of variables: women's power within the organization
 548 GRUBER AND SMITH

or workplace; the sexual climate of the organization; and women's attitudes

about their worth or efficacy or, more generally, about the power or worth
of womankind. There is a dearth of research employing multivariate
techniques to examine differences in women's responses to harassment.
Specifically, few studies show that some variables are stronger than others
in affecting women's responses. In this article, we analyze women's
responses in two ways. First, a harassment response continuum was
developed, similar to one used earlier by Gruber and Bjorn (1986)' which
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

measures assertiveness of response. Second, women who quit their jobs are
analyzed separately. Finally, we address several questions that have been
prompted by previous research.
1. Are women who have substantial organizational power more apt than
others to respond assertively to harassment? More specifically, are harass-
ment responses more assertive (a) among women who hold prestigious jobs,
(b) among women who work in occupations that are numerically gender
balanced, (c) when women have a notable numerical presence in the
immediate workplace, or (d) when the source of harassment is a coworker
rather than a supervisor? We argue that each of these forms of power
reduces the risk of assertive responses.
2. Do organizations that have explicit policies or procedures with regard
to sexual harassment encourage assertive responses to harassment? Re-
search (Pryor et al., 1993) has shown that organizations that are actively
concerned about sexual harassment report fewer incidents of harassment.
We argue that such environments also prompt more assertive responses to
harassment because policies and procedures reduce some of the risks
women face when complaining about harassment. Conversely, the lack of
organizational norms against sexual harassment are likely to produce a
chilly climate in which women perceive that their concerns and issues are
either ignored or relegated to a secondary status.
3. Are women who believe that power differences between men and
women are the result of cultural norms rather than biological urges or
individual preferences more apt to respond assertively to harassment? We
argue that women who perceive sexual harassment as a power issue and,
subsequently, do not endorse self-blame or biological models of harassment
are more apt to respond assertively to harassment.

METHOD

Sample

Telephone interviews of Canadian women who were employed or had been

employed during the previous year were conducted in 1992 under the
 RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT 549

direction of Michael D. Smith (the second author). A two-stage probability-

sampling procedure was used to develop a representative sample of women
throughout Canada. Sixty-five percent of the sample completed the inter-
views (n = 1,990). The interviews, which were conducted by trained female
interviewers, averaged 30 min in length and focused on public (e.g., obscene
phone calls and stalking) and workplace harassment. The median age of the
women was 34. Nearly 70% were married, and most had had some
education beyond high school. A little more than one third of the sample
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

lived in a large city or a metropolitan area.

Measures: Responses to Sexual Harassment

The interviewees were asked if they had experienced 1 or more of 12 forms

of uninvited sexual attention in the workplace. The words sexual harass-
ment were not used so that the interviewees' replies would not be influenced
by their perception of these types of attention as harassment. Later, they
were asked to describe the incident that had upset them the most. With
regard to this harassment incident, women were asked an open-ended
question: "Can you tell me how you dealt with the situation?" Content
analysis of the codable responses by a team of three research assistants
resulted in 11 substantive categories: ignored it, responded directly to the
person, reported the person, quit the position, retaliated, spoke to some-
one, avoided the issue, changed ways of acting, did not deal with it,
physically removed self, and took it as a joke.' For purposes of this study,
categories that involved similar response strategies (see Gruber, 1989) were
combined, resulting in seven categories of response. As mentioned earlier,
these response strategies parallel the externally focused strategies developed
by Fitzgerald et al. (1995). Harassment response was used as a measure of
degree of assertiveness in multivariate analyses according to the rationale
described in an earlier stayY--@~1;1h & Bjorn, 1986): Behaviors that
attempted to address the behavior of the harasser were viewed as more
assertive than behaviors that attempted either to defuse the situation or to
obstruct the harasser. Ignoring and avoiding were least assertive, changing
one's behavior and seeking social support were intermediate, and direct
response and reporting were the most assertive. Because quitting did not fit
into this rationale, it was not included in the response variable that was used

'The coding of the open-ended questions occurred in five steps. First, an exhaustive list of
responses to each question was developed. Second, the responses were placed in fairly broad
categories that encompassed the replies. Third, the responses were entered into data files under
the general headings developed during Stage 2. Fourth, subcategories were developed. Finally,
the subcategories were revised and expanded until the list was exhaustive and the categories
were mutually exclusive.
 550 GRUBER AND SMITH

in the multivariate analysis. An multivariate analysis of women who quit

their jobs was conducted separately.

Measures: Predictor Variables

Sexual harassment severity, The interviewees were asked if they had

experienced one or more of 12 forms of uninvited sexual attention in the
past 12 months. Severity was determined by the impact of each type of
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

sexual attention based on responses to the question that followed each

uninvited sexual attention item, "How upset were you?" Responses to this
item were very upset, fairly upset, and not at all upset. The categories were
converted to a 10-point scale ranging from 1 (not severe) to 10 (very severe).
Severity rankings, means, and standard deviations of each type are as
follows: sexual assault-M = 8.7, SD = 2.5; bribery-M = 8.1, SD = 4.1;
touching-M = 6.9, SD = 3.8; leaning over or cornering-M = 6.6, SD
= 3.5; spreading sexual gossip behind the respondent's back -M = 6.1, SD
= 3.7; questions about a woman's sex life-M = 6.0, SD = 3.6; sexual
gestures-M = 5.8, SD = 3.1; repeated date requests-M = 5.7, SD =
3.1; sexual categorical remarks about women in general -M = 5.2, SD =
3.5; staring-M = 4.9, SD = 3.5; sexual jokes-M = 4.8, SD = 3.5; and
sexual materials- M = 3.9, SD = 2.7. This ranking was consistent across
occupational groups in Canada (professionals, managers, and blue-collar
workers) and in the United States (Michigan auto workers; Gruber, Smith,
& Kauppinen-Toropainen, 1995).

Sexual harassment policies. The respondents were asked a series of

questions about the existence of workplace policies or procedures on sexual
harassment at their place of employment. The questions asked for their
knowledge of a written policy on sexual harassment, official procedures for
dealing with the problem, company or union posters on harassment,
company or union pamphlets, or company or union presentations on the
topic. The items were combined to create a variable that indicated the
number of such procedures/policies in the workplace (zero to five).
The federal policies on sexual harassment adopted by the Canadian
government are quite similar to those of the U.S. Equal Employment
Opportunities Commission (1988). The Canadian Human Rights Commis-
sion (1985) defined harassment as a form of discrimination involving
unwelcome physical or verbal conduct that either becomes a term or
condition of employment, interferes with job performance or access, or
serves to humiliate or intimidate an individual.

Source. When describing the sexual harassment experience that had

affected them the most, the interviewees were asked to state the organiza-
 RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT 551

tional position of the harasser(s). The response categories included persons

with more authority, those who were peers, and those who were clients or
customers. Contrapower harassment (McKinney, 1992), or harassment by
persons with less organizational power than the target, was not tapped by
this survey. It is possible that some of the women who responded "someone
else" to this question (7.1 To) had experienced contrapower harassment.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

Multiple harassers. With regard to the experience that had bothered

them the most, women were asked for the number of men who were
involved in that experience. The respondents were not asked about their
harassment experiences with other women.

Occupational sex composition. The proportions presented by

Blishen, Carroll, and Moore (1987), based on the 1981 Canadian census
data, were the basis of this variable. The occupation of each interviewee was
given a score from 1 to 4 based on the percentage of women across Canada
who performed the same job. The 4-point ranking system was used to create
the traditionality variable. Based on the work of Kanter (1977), Gruber and
Bjorn (1982), and Izraeli (1989), who found that there was not a linear
relation between sex composition and harassment, two additional variables
were created. Threatening minority was a dichotomous variable in which
the 26% to 50% category was juxtaposed against a category consisting of
the other three categories, which was based on Gruber and Bjorn's (1982)
findings. Balanced occupations is a variable composed of Categories 2
(26%-50%) and 3 (51%-75%) juxtaposed with Categories 1 and 4.

Occupational status. Status determinations of the sample members

were based on the occupational rankings for Canadians developed by
Pineo, Porter, and McRoberts (1977). Mean occupational ranks were
developed by asking a representative national sample to rank a list of
occupations according to how prestigious the respondents perceived each
one to be.

Workplace gender composition. The respondents were asked to

describe the gender composition of their place of work and with whom they
had the most daily contact. Responses to these two items were combined.
Three variables similar in rationale to those just described (occupational sex
composition) were created: traditionality, threatening minority, and bal-
anced.

Sexual harassment as power. Six items that tapped women's atti-

tudes about sexual harassment were factor analyzed: Harassment is a serious
problem for working women, men use harassment to keep women in their
 552 GRUBER AND SMITH

place, women bring it (harassment) upon themselves, persistent harassers

should be fired, women are overly sensitive about harassment, and harass-
ment results from men's biological urges. A two-factor solution resulted.
Two items (serious problem and keep women in their place) loaded on the
first factor (eigenvalue = 1.62, explained variance = 32.3%). The items
were combined to create a 4-point scale ranging from 1 (sexual harassment
is not about power) to 4 (strong agreement that sexual harassment is about
power).
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

DESCRIPTIVE ANALYSIS

The women in the sample responded somewhat more assertively to harass-

ment compared to those in other studies (see Gruber, 1989, for a review).
Approximately half the women indicated that they either responded directly
to (42.8%) or reported (8.3%) the harasser. Over one third of the
harassment recipients either ignored or avoided the harasser/harassment.
Nearly 4% indicated that they had quit a job due to the harassment in
question. The greater assertiveness of women in this survey may be due to
the fact that women were asked how they responded to the experience that
had the greatest impact on them. Greatest impact experiences may have
been those that were more severe, and harassment severity is correlated with
response (see Table 1). More severe harassment evokes more assertive

TABLE 1
Types of Responses Given to Six Forms of Sexual Harassment

Type of Response
Type of Change Spoke to Direct
Harassment" Ignore Avoid Ways Someone Response Report Quit
-
Total 23.2b 14.3 4.7 42.8 8.3 3.9
Assault 5.2 11.7 14.3 37.7 16.9 9.1
Bribery 18.1 6.0 6.0 18.2 30.0 21.2
Gestures 32.6 16.9 5.7 31.3 6.3 2.0
Dates 22.1 13.2 4.4 42.6 14.7 1.5
Stares 45.2 19.4 1.6 27.4 0 3.2
Jokes 38.7 4.8 6.5 35.5 11.3 3.3
Note. Most of the respondents had experienced more than 1 of the 12 forms of sexual
harassment presented in the survey. An additional set of questions asked the women to
describe the harassment that had the greatest impact on them. These figures are based on those
responses. x2(30, N = 365) = 78.65, p < .001.
"These six forms of harassment were chosen because they represent very severe (assault and
bribery), severe (gestures and dates), and less severe (stares and jokes) types of harassment.
bAll figures are percentages.
 RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT 553

responses, X2(30,N = 365) = 78.65, p < .001. Women who experienced

bribery were less apt to ignore (18.1%) or avoid (6.0%) the harasser and
more apt to quit (21.2%) than those who were recipients of stares (45.2070,
19.49'0, and 3.2'7'0, respectively) or sexual jokes (38.7%, 4.7070, and 3.3%,
respectively). Because bribery generally involves someone in a supervisory
position, it is not surprising that recipients of this form of harassment were
less apt to confront the harasser and more apt to quit their jobs than women
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

who have experienced the remaining five forms presented in Table 1.

The results presented in Table 2 suggest that the type of policy or
procedure that exists in the workplace is not as important in influencing
women's responses to harassment as the number of policies or procedures
that are in place. Specifically, women who worked in environments that had
at least four sexual harassment policies or procedures were much more
likely to make a direct response to or report the harasser and much less
likely to ignore the harasser than organizations that had no formal
mechanisms for dealing with harassment, X2(6,N = 938) = 20.92, p < .0l.
Our data suggest that one particular policy or procedure alone (e.g., formal
procedure or presentation by officials) does not significantly increase
reporting or direct responses than another. For example, women who have
heard a presentation are less likely to avoid (18.0%) and more apt to report
(10.0"lo) the harassment than are those who have seen posters (22.9% and
8.5070, respectively), but these differences are small. It appears that a
concerted effort on the part of the organization to deal with harassment is
necessary to encourage women to respond assertively.

TABLE 2
Sexual Harassment Policies and Types of Responses to Harassment

Change Spoke to Direct

Ignore Avoid Ways Someone Response Report Quit
n 24.6" 14.7 2.6 4.2 42.8 7.8 3.4
Types of sexual harassment
policies (% exposed)
Written policy 21.3 13.5 3.1 4.2 45.7 8.8 3.4
Formal procedure 21.8 13.6 3.1 4.5 44.6 9.7 2.6
Posters 22.9 13.0 2.5 4.2 46.5 8.5 2.5
Pamphlets 19.9 13.6 3.2 4.6 47.1 9.2 2.3
Presentation 18.0 13.3 4.7 6.7 44.7 10.0 2.7
Number of sexual harassment
policies
Four or More 18.2 12.5 3.4 4.5 49.4 10.2 1.7
Noneb 27.7 15.7 1.7 3.8 40.7 6.5 4.0
Note. N = 989.
"All figures are percentages. bThe differences between these two categories are statistically
significant, g ( 6 , N = 938) = 20.92, p < .01.
 554 GRUBER AND SMITH

The data in Table 3 reveal that the source of harassment, x2(12,N = 986)
= 64.86, p < .001, not the number of harassers, influences women's
responses. Women were less apt to respond directly to a supervisor (34.1 %)
than a coworker (49.1%) or client or customer (39.8%). They were also
more likely to have quit a job when the harasser was a supervisor (12.5%)
as opposed to either a coworker (1.2%) or client/customer (.8%). The
women who were harassed by more than one person did not respond
differently than those who had to deal with a lone harasser. Assertiveness of
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

responses did not increase systematically with an increase in the proportion

TABLE 3
Situational and Attitudinal Determinants of Responses to Sexual Harassment

Type of Response
Change Spoke to Direct
n Ignore Avoid Ways Someone Response Report Quit
Total 989 24.6a 14.7 2.6 4.2 42.8 7.8 3.4
Source of harassmentb
Supervisor 267 22.6 15.4 3.4 5.3 34.1 6.7 12.5
Coworkers 483 24.2 13.3 1.4 2.7 49.1 8.1 1.2
Clients, customer 251 26.9 15.9 3.6 6.4 39.8 7.2 .8
More than one haras~er?~
No 770 23.5 15.8 2.5 4.4 41.8 8.1 3.9
Yes 191 30.9 11.5 3.1 3.1 43.5 6.3 1.6
Occupational sex composition (To women)d
>25% 109 22.9 16.5 2.8 3.7 43.1 8.3 2.8
26%-50% 159 19.5 10.7 1.9 2.5 52.8 9.4 3.1
51%-75% 215 24.2 14.4 2.5 4.7 43.3 6.5 4.7
76% + 526 26.6 15.6 2.9 4.6 39.5 7.8 3.0
Occupational statuse
Upper White collar 130 17.7 18.5 .8 5.4 43.1 10.8 3.8
Mid-level White collar 196 20.4 13.3 4.6 4.1 47.4 6.6 3.6
Lower White collar 430 27.0 13.0 2.6 4.4 43.5 6.7 2.8
Blue collar 71 25.4 18.3 2.8 1.4 40.8 8.5 2.8
Workplace sex composition (joint work)f
Male-dominated 198 24.2 10.1 4.0 3.5 44.4 9.6 4.0
Mostly male 98 21.4 14.3 3.1 3.1 46.9 9.2 2.0
Balanced 196 20.4 16.8 2.0 4.1 46.9 6.6 3.1
Mostly female 155 27.7 13.5 2.6 5.8 35.5 10.3 4.3
Female-dominated 334 27.2 15.6 2.1 4.2 42.5 5.7 2.7
Sexual harassment is about power?g
Yes 647 22.1 13.4 2.5 4.3 44.2 9.4 4.0
No 360 29.2 16.9 2.8 3.9 40.0 5.0 2.2
"All figures are percentages. b2(12,N = 986) = 6 4 . 8 6 , ~< .001. ' 2 ( 6 , N = 945) = 9.24,
p = .16. d2(18, N = 951) = 14.35, p = .71. For Threatening Minority, 2 ( 6 , N = 951) =
1 7 . 3 6 , ~< .05. e2(18, N = 818) = 1 8 . 2 4 , ~= .44. fg(24, N = 963) = 2 0 . 4 8 , ~= .67.5&6,
 RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT 555

of women in a particular occupation. However, those in occupations where

women were a sizeable (26% to 50%) or threatening minority (Gruber &
Bjorn, 1982) responded more assertively to harassment than others, $(6, N
= 951) = 17.36, p < .05. Over 62% of these women either responded
directly to the harasser (52.8%) or reported (9.4%) the harassment. There
were no obvious differences in responses among women in terms of
workplace gender composition. Those in mostly female or female-
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

dominated jobs were somewhat less apt to respond assertively; the differ-
ences, however, were small and nonsignificant. Similarly, occupational
status mattered little in terms of women's responses to harassment. For
example, white-collar female workers responded directly to (43.1%) or
reported (10.8%) harassment more frequently than blue-collar female
workers (40.8% and 8.5%, respectively), but the differences were small and
nonsignificant.
It appears that women's responses are also related to their attitudes about
sexual harassment, $(6, N = 988) = 15.75, p < .01. Specifically, women
who believed that sexual harassment is about power or male dominance
ignored (22.1%) or avoided (13.4%) the harassment less frequently than
others. Also, women who viewed harassment as a power issue were nearly
twice as likely (9.4% vs. 5.0%) to report the harassment. It may be that
women are more likely to report acts of uninvited sexual attention when
these acts are perceived as organizational, as opposed to interpersonal,
problems. In a similar vein, such women were less apt to ignore or avoid the
harassment perhaps because they felt that the harassing behavior was
unwarranted role behavior (McKinney, 1992).

MULTIVARIATE ANALYSIS

The predictors presented in Tables 1 through 3 were entered into two

multivariate analyses: one of response assertiveness and one predicting
quitting. A multiple regression analysis was employed to determine the
predictive ability of the eight independent variables (see Table 4). Standard-
ized regression coefficients (betas) and standard errors were computed for
each predictor. Quitting was analyzed using logistic regression, a procedure
recommended for analyses that involve a dichotomous dependent variable.
Unstandardized regression coefficients and standard errors are reported for
each predictor. In large samples (N > 120), the odds ratio for each
predictor closely approximates a t score. These multivariate procedures
were selected in order to determine the unique or independent effect that
each predictor has on the respective dependent variable. Also, the size of the
coefficients that result from these analyses enables the researcher to
compare the relative predictive powers of each independent variable.
 556 GRUBER AND SMITH

TABLE 4
Multivariate Analyses of Predictors of Sexual Harassment Responses

Sexual Harassmenf Response"

Assertivenessb Quit"

P SE P SE
Severity
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

Policy
Source
Number of harassers
Occupational Sex
Compositione
OCCTRADIT - .028 .016 .033 .218
OCCTHREAT - .132** .045 .085 .583
OCCBAL - .072* .031 .579 .461
Occupational Status .014 .014 .237 .205
Workplace Sex
Compositione
WKTRADIT .028 .021 .215 .218
WKTHREAT .038 .044 - .681 .623
WKBAL .018 .030 - .I23 .456
Sexual harassment as power .018* .008 .064 .I49
aRelations for assertiveness are expressed as standardized coefficients. The results of logistic
regressions of the predictors on quit are expressed as unstandardized beta coefficients. bn =
771. 'n = 763. *High numeric values are associated with assertiveness, quitting, workplace
policies/procedures, coworkers/clients source, several harassers, imbalanced sex ratios in
occupation or workplace, high occupational status, and harassment as power. 'Each variable
for occupational sex composition or workplace sex composition was entered into a separate
regression analysis. Three variables were created for both types of sex composition: Percentage
of women (OCCTRADIT and WKTRADIT), threatening minority of women (OCCTHREAT
and WKTHREAT), and numerical balance of women and men (OCCBAL and WKBAL).
* p < .05. **p < .01.

Severity of harassment was the strongest predictor of response (X = .233,

p < .01). A similar outcome was found in a study of women autoworkers
(Gruber & Bjorn, 1986) that employed multivariate techniques. Women
also responded more assertively when the harasser was not someone with
supervisory power (0 = .144, p < .01). Workplace or organizational
policies or procedures with regard to sexual harassment were related to
assertiveness (p = .122, p < .01). Number of harassers, occupational
status, and sex composition of the workplace did not influence the
responses. However, the sex composition of women's occupations was a
factor: three separate regression analyses employing each occupational sex
composition variable individually found that occupations in which women
were a sizable minority (p = - .132, p < .01) or in which there was
numerical parity (0 = - .072, p < .05) were associated with assertive
 RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT 557

responses. Finally, response assertiveness was a result of women's beliefs

about sexual harassment: Those who perceived harassment as a function of
male power were more apt than other women to respond assertively to
harassment (p = .018, p < .05).
The model predicting quitting is less complicated than the model for
response. Severity of harassment is a significant variable (B = .172, p <
.01), as evidenced earlier (Table 1). However, source is a stronger predictor
of quitting than is severity (B = - 2.18, p < .01). Our data indicate that,
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

given similar levels of severity, women who are harassed by supervisors or

employers were more likely to quit than those harassed by coworkers,
clients, or customers. Differences in occupational status or sex composi-
tion, workplace sex composition, number of harassers, policies/procedures,
or beliefs about harassment did not predict quitting.

SEXUAL HARASSMENT AND THE MANAGEMENT OF

STRAINED WORK RELATIONSHIPS

Our results suggest that women's responses to sexual harassment stem from
two sources: the management of social relationships and the dynamics of
power in the workplace. These are interrelated, of course: Management of
a difficult situation is a function of the characteristics of the setting and the
other person, as well as the reaction of various audiences. Goffman (1967)
provided a theoretical context for the management of strain in social
relationships. His concept of interaction order emphasizes the fact that
participants in interaction work diligently to create and maintain a defini-
tion of the situation that allows the interactants to role-play in a competent
manner (Goffman, 1983). The success of this socially constructed reality is
to create a situation that treats the role performances of each participant
as credible. Conversely, social interactants often take great measures to
avoid embarrassment, which could result when the identity or role claims of
another are inappropriate. Various face-saving (and situation-saving) de-
vices are employed when one of the interactants has bungled, stumbled,
behaved outrageously, or otherwise violated the tenets of the situation:
ignoring the behavior (e.g., bad table manners of a dinner guest), avoiding
topics or interaction (e.g., switching a heated discussion during a social
occasion to a trivial topic), or explaining away the behavior as exceptional
(see Goffman, 1967). Goffman proposed that these less assertive responses
are, in fact, the basis of all social interaction. What is exceptional, then, are
not passive responses (e.g., ignoring or avoiding) but assertive responses
that threaten to expose the arbitrary nature of this tacit dimension of social
life. Organizations are never well-oiled machines; role performances are
seldom straightforward. Instead, in Goffman's writings, ambiguity, nu-
 ance, layered meanings, and the subtle proddings of social etiquette form
the undercurrent of social roles and cultural institutions.
Men are more aggressive, whereas women are responsible for the
maintenance work of social interactions (Kollock, Blumstein, & Schwartz,
1985; Tannen, 1990). These roles are culturally proscribed and organiza-
tionally reinforced (Henley & Kramarae, 1991; Ridgeway & Diekema,
1992). Add to this the fact that the introjection of sexual definitions into
organizational roles occurs more frequently by men than by women (e.g.,
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

see Stockdale's, 1993, review of the literature on men's misperceptions of

women's friendliness). The result is that women are largely responsible in
work settings for articulating the appropriateness of work roles by reacting
defensively (ignoring or avoiding) or offensively (e.g., helping others save
face, countering claims about one's role or identity, and protecting the
harasser from being harmed). The fact that a sizable volume of research
over the past 10 years has found that women use passive means of handling
harassment may be viewed as typical reactions to out-of-role behaviors by
others that trigger responses to restore a working consensus of the situation.
However, the harassment severity-response relation found here and else-
where (Baker, Terpstra, & Larntz, 1990; Gruber & Bjorn, 1986) is evidence
that women violate the tenets of everyday civility in response to the incivility
of the harassment: As the harassment becomes more severe, the responses
become more confrontational or authoritative.
The second sources of women's responses to harassment, objective and
subjective power, are aspects of social management. Gruber and Bjorn
(1986) created a model of sexual harassment response based on three forms
of power: sociocultural, organizational, and personal resources. They
argued that each form of power enabled women to respond assertively to
violations of work roles. Our results suggest that women are more able to
adapt a wider range of responses when the source does not have more
organizational power, the occupation is gender-balanced or nearly so, or
when harassment is perceived as a power issue. From our data, it is quite
clear that women who experience harassment from an employer or super-
visor are especially limited in their responses compared to other women.
The former not only opt for less assertive responses but are also forced out
of their jobs at a much higher rate than women harassed by peers.
Generally, women's responses to harassment occur within the context of
considerable risk. Pryor et al.'s (1993) and Fitzgerald et al.'s (in press)
conceptualizationsof perceptions of risk and subsequent responses speak to
the uncertainty women face when dealing with their harassers. Assertive
responses may not only be out of role for women, but they may increase the
chances of negative outcomes. Empowered women may have a larger
repertoire of responses available to them when countering harassment; but,
 RESPONSES TO SEXUAL HARASSMENT 559

in many instances, the outcome is likely to strike a blow to their economic,

emotional, or physical well-being.
Finally, the climate of an organization toward sexual harassment is a
factor in women's assertiveness. Our findings and those of Pryor et al.
(1993) suggest that women are protected from and have a wider array of
responses to harassment when sexualized interaction in the workplace is
controlled by a set of explicit policies and procedures. These policies and
procedures, among other things, make explicit the implicit and, conse-
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

quently, remove the onus of responsibility for the maintenance work of

organizational roles from women. An explicit set of policies and proce-
dures-as opposed to no policies or procedures or to a token effort-are
likely to create a work atmosphere that emphasizes the primacy of
professional role obligations over ascribed gender roles that often spill over
(Gutek & Morasch, 1982) into the workplace. An earlier study (Kauppinen-
Toropainen & Gruber, 1993) found that women in workplaces where norms
of professionalism were evident were less apt to experience sexual harass-
ment and gender hostility. We suggest that women are more apt to counter
violations of workplace norms when organizational policies stress profes-
sional behavior.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

Michael D. Smith passed away while this manuscript was under review.

REFERENCES

Baker, D. D., Terpstra, D., & Larntz, K. (1990). The influence of individual characteristics
and severity of harassing behavior on reactions to sexual harassment. Sex Roles, 22,
305-326.
Biaggio, M. K., Watts, D., & Brownell, A. (1990). Addressing sexual harassment: Strategies
for prevention and change. In M. A. Paludi (Fid.), Ivory power: Sexual harassment on
campus (pp. 213-230). Albany: State University of New York Press.
Blishen, B., Carroll, B., & Moore, D. (1987). The 1981 socioeconomic index for occupations
in Canada. Canadian Review of Sociology, 24, 462-88.
Brooks, L., & Perot, A. R. (1991). Reporting sexual harassment: Exploring a predictive model.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 15, 31-47.
Cammaert, L. P. (1985). How widespread is sexual harassment on campus? International
Journal of Women's Studies, 8, 388-397.
Canadian Human Rights Commission. (1983). Unwanted sexual attention and sexual harass-
ment. Montreal: Minister of Supply and Services of Canada.
Canadian Human Rights Commission. (1985). Harassment. Ottawa: Minister of Supply and
Services of Canada.
 Coles, F. (1986). Forced to quit: Sexual harassment complaints and agency response. Sex
Roles, 14, 81-95.
Collins, E., & Blodgett, T. (1981). Sexual harassment: Some see it some won't. Harvard
Business Review, 59, 77, 95.
Crull, P. (1982). Stress effects of sexual harassment on the job: Implications for counseling.
American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 52, 539-544.
Culbertson, A. L., Rosenfeld, P., Booth-Kewley, S., & Magnusson, P. (1992). Assessment of
sexual harassment in the Navy: Results of the 1989 Navy-wide survey (Report No.
TR-92-11). San Diego, CA: Navy Personnel Research and Development Center.
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

Dunwoody-Miller, V., & Gutek, B. (1985). S.H.E. project report: Sexual harassment in the
state workforce: Results of a survey. Sacramento: Sexual Harassment in Employment
Project of the California Commission on the Status of Women.
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. (1988). EEOC policy guidance (Report No.
N915.035.5168).
Fitzgerald, I,. F. (in press). No safe haven: Violence against women in the workplace. In APA
Taskforce on Male Violence Against Women (Eds.), No safe haven: Violence against
women at home, at work, and in the community. Washington, DC: American Psychological
Association.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Gold, Y., Brock, K., & Gelfand, M. (1995). Responses to victimization:
Validation of an objective inventory to assess strategies for responding to harassment.
Manuscript submitted for publication.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Hulin, C., & Drasgow, F. (in press). The antecedents and consequences of
sexual harassment in organizations: An integrated model. In G. Keuta & S. Sauter (Eds.),
Job stress 2000: Emergent issues. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Fitzgerald, L. F., & Shullman, S. L. (1993). Sexual harassment: A research analysis and
agenda for the 90's. Journal of VocationaI Behavior, 42, 5-29.
Fitzgerald, L. F., Weitzman, L. M., Gold, Y., & Omerod, M. (1988). Academic harassment:
Sex and denial in scholarly garb. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 12, 329-340.
Goffman, E . (1967). Interaction ritual: Essays on face-to-face interaction. Garden City, NJ:
Anchor Books.
Goffman, E. (1983). The interaction order. American Sociological Review, 82, 1-17.
Gruber, J. E. (1989). How women handle sexual harassment: A literature review. Sociology
and Social Research, 74, 3-9.
Gruber, J. E. (1990). Methodological problems and policy implications in sexual harassment
research. Population Research and Policy Review, 9, 235-254.
Gruber, J. E., & Bjorn, L. (1982). Blue-collar blues: The sexual harassment of women
autoworkers. Work and occupations, 9, 271-298.
Gruber, J. E., & Bjorn, L. (1986). Women's responses to sexual harassment: An analysis of
sociocultural, organizational, and personal resource models. Social Science Quarterly, 67,
814-825.
Gruber, J. E., Smith, M., & Kauppinen-Toropainen, K. (in press). An exploration of sexual
harassment experiences and severity: Results from North k n e r i ~and Europe. In P.
Stockdale (Ed.), Women & Work, Vol. 6: Sexual harassment.
Gutek, B. A. (1985). Sex and the workplace: The impact of sexual behavior and harassment on
women, men and organization. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Gutek, B. A., & Koss, M. (1993). Changed women and changed organizations: Consequences
of and coping with sexual harassment. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 42, 1-21.
Gutek, B. A., & Morasch, B. (1982). Sex ratios, sex-role spillover, and sexual harassment of
women at work. Journal of Social Issues, 38, 55-74.
Henley, N., & Kramarae, C. (1991). Gender, power, and miscommunication. In N. Coupland,
 H. Giles, & Wiemann (Eds.), Miscommunicationandproblematic talk. Newbury Park, CA:
Sage.
Hesson-McInnis, M., & Fitzgerald, L. F. (1992, November). Sexual harassment: A preliminary
test of an integrative model. Paper presented at the second annual American Psychological
AssociationAVational Institute of Occupational Safety and Health Conference on Stress in
the Workplace, Washington, DC.
Izraeli, D. (1989). Sex effects or structural effects? An empirical test of Kanter's theory of
proportions. Social Forces, 62, 153-165.
Jensen, I., & Gutek, B. (1982). Attributions and responsibility for sexual harassment. Journal
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

of Social Issues, 38, 121-136.

Kanter, R. M. (1977). Men and women of the corporation. New York: Basic Books.
Kauppinnen-Toropainen, K., & Gruber, J. (1993). The antecedents and outcomes of women-
unfriendly behavior: A study of Scandinavian, former Soviet, and American women.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 17, 43 1-456.
Konrad, A. M., & Gutek, B. (1986). Impact of work experiences on attitudes toward sexual
harassment. Administrative Science Quarterly, 31, 422-438.
Kollock, P., Blumstein, P., & Schwartz, P. (1985). Sex and power in interaction: Conversa-
tional privileges and duties. American Sociological Review, 50, 34-46.
Koss, M. P. (1990). Changed lives: The psychological impact of sexual harassment. In M. A.
Paludi (Ed.), Ivory power: Sexual harassment on campus (pp. 73-92). Albany: State
University of New York Press.
Loy, P., & Stewart, L. P. (1984). The extent and effect of the sexual harassment of working
women. Sociological Focus, 17, 31-43.
Maypole, D. E. (1986). Sexual harassment of social workers at work: Justice within? Social
Work, 31, 29-34.
Mazer, D. B., & Percival, E. F. (1989). Ideology or experience? The relationships among
perceptions, attitudes, and experiences of sexual harassment in university students. Sex
Roles, 20, 135-147.
McIntyre, D. (1982). Sexual harassment in government: The situation in Florida and the
nation. Tallahassee: Florida State University.
McI(i~ey,K. (1990). Sexual harassment of university faculty by colleagues and students. Sex
Ro~w,23, 421-438.
McKinney, K. (1992). Contrapower sexual harassment: The effects of student sex and type of
behavior on faculty perceptions. Sex Roles, 27, 1-17.
McKinney, K. (1994). Sexual harassment and college faculty members. Deviant Behavior: An
Interdiscplinary Journal, 15, 171-191.
Miceli, M. P., & Near, J. P. (1988). Individual and situational correlates of whistle-blowing.
Personnel Psychology, 41, 267-281.
Near, J. P., & Miceli, M. (1987). Whistle-blowers in organizations: Dissidents or reformers?
In L. Cummings & B. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior (pp. 321-67).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Pineo, P. C., Porter, J., & McRoberts, L. (1977). Occupational prestige in Canada. Canadian
Review of Sociology and Anthropology, 14, 24-43.
Powell, G. N. (1986). Effects of sex role identity and sex on definitions of sexual harassment.
Sex Roles, 14, 9-19.
Pryor, J. B., LaVite, C. M., & Stoller, L. M. (1993). A social psychological analysis of sexual
harassment: The person/situation interaction. Journal o f Vocational Behavior, 42, 68-81.
Ragins, B., & ~candira,T. (1992). Antecedents and consequences of sexual harassment. Paper
presented at the 1992 conference of the Society for Industrial/Organizational Psychology,
Montreal, Canada.
 562 GRUBER AND SMITH

Ridgeway, C., & Diekema, D. (1992). Are gender differences status differences? In C.
Ridgeway (Ed.), Gender, interaction, and inequality @p. 138-157). New York: Springer-
Verlag.
Schneider, B. E. (1991). Put up and shut up: Workplace sexual assaults. Gender and Society,
5, 533-548.
Schneider, B. (1982). Consciousness about sexual harassment among heterosexual and lesbian
women workers. Journal of SocialZmues, 38, 75-98.
Sheppard, D. (1989). Organization, power, and sexuality: The image and self image of women
managers. In J. Hem, L. Sheppard, P. Tancred-Sherrif, & G. Burrell (Eds.), Thesexuality
Downloaded by [Memorial University of Newfoundland] at 03:54 30 January 2015

of organizations ( p p . 74-91). London: Sage.

Stockdale, M. (1993). The role of sexual misperceptions of women's friendliness in an
emerging theory of sexual harassment. Journal of VocationalBehavior, 42, 84-101.
Stringer-Moore, D. (1982). Sexual harassment in the Seattle city workforce. Seattle, WA:
Office of Women's Rights.
Tannen, D. (1990). You just don't understand: Women and men in conversation. New York:
Ballantine.
Terpstra, D. E., & Baker, D. D. (1989). The identification and classification of reactions to
sexual harassment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 10, 1-14.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1981). Sexual harassment in the federal workplace: Is
it a problem? Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
U.S. Merit Systems Protection Board. (1988). Sexual harassment in thefederal workplace: An
update. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office.
Verba, S., DiNunzio, J., & Spaulding, C. (1983). Unwanted attention: Report on a sexual
harassment survey. Cambridge, M A : Harvard University Press.
Webking, E. (1979). A study of sexual harassment in Lethbridge. Lethbridge: Citizens' Human
Rights Council.