sexual harassment john b. pryor, ph.d. illinois state university
TRANSCRIPT
Sexual Sexual HarassmentHarassment
John B. Pryor, Ph.D.John B. Pryor, Ph.D.Illinois State UniversityIllinois State University
Robinson v. Robinson v. Jacksonville Jacksonville Shipyards (1991)Shipyards (1991)
Ellison v.Ellison v.Brady (1991)Brady (1991)
Barnes v. Barnes v. Costle (1977)Costle (1977)
HostileHostileEnvironmentEnvironment
QuidQuidProProQuoQuo
Title VIITitle VIIof 1964of 1964
CivilCivilRights Rights
ActActprohibitsprohibitsgender-gender-based based discri-discri-
minationmination
US Law EEOC Guidelines Example Cases
1714
64
55
0
20
40
60
80
Per
cent
Har
asse
d
1988 1995
Survey
DoD Sexual Harassment Surveys: 95 vs 88
Men
Women
15 14
19
42 4244
0
10
20
30
40
50Pe
rcen
t Har
asse
d in
the
Pre
viou
s 2
Yea
rs
1980 1987 1994
Year
Surveys of Federal Workers
Men
Women
37
29
24
13
10
7
7
4
14
9
8
4
4
2
2
2
0 10 20 30 40
Percent
Sexual remarks, jokes, teasing
Sexual looks, gestures
Deliberate touching, cornering
Pressure for dates
Suggestive letters, calls, materials
Stalking
Pressure for sexual favors
Actual/attempted rape, assault
Behaviors
MSPB Data
Women
Men
S
Is it sexual harassment if a supervisor does it?
85.7
10.9
72.4
20.1
61
26.4
62.1
23.8
43.8
32.6
40.9
31.9
95
4
87
10.8
77.3
17.1
75.3
15.6
65.7
25
56.1
26.6
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
definitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobably
pressure forsexual favors
touch, lean,corner, pinch
letters, calls,sexual materials
pressure fordates
suggestivelooks, gestures
teasing, jokes,remarks
percent of Federal Workers
males
females
Is it sexual harassment if a co-worker does it?
77.1
15.6
64.2
24.4
50.1
30.9
47.6
27.9
36 34.1 33.230.8
92.7
5.4
83.7
12.4
70
21.5
65
19.6
60
27.7
48.7
27.8
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
definitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobablydefinitelyprobably
pressure forsexual favors
touch, lean,corner, pinch
letters, calls,sexual materials
pressure fordates
suggestivelooks, gestures
teasing, jokes,remarks
percent of Federal workers
males
females
77
28
3
7
79
14
11
6
0 25 50 75 100
Percent
Coworker or other employee
Immediate and/or higher level supervisor
Subordinate
Other or unknown
Organizational Role
MSPB Survey: Who was harasser?
Women
Men
Typical Victims - similar to average Federal workers
• Profession/administrator/managerProfession/administrator/manager
• College educatedCollege educated
• over 35over 35
• GS-11 & aboveGS-11 & above
• Profession/administrator/manager/clerkProfession/administrator/manager/clerk
• College educatedCollege educated
• over 35over 35
• GS-5 through GS-12GS-5 through GS-12
MalesMales
FemalesFemales
44
35
28
15
12
10
7
0 10 20 30 40 50
Percent
Ignored it/did nothing
Asked or told harasser to stop
Avoided the harasser
Made joke of it
Reported to supervisor/official
Threatened to tell/told others
Went along
Reactions
How did victims react?
Impact of Sexual Harassmentover 2 Year Period
• Job TurnoverJob Turnover $24.7 million$24.7 million
• Sick LeaveSick Leave $14.9 million$14.9 million
• Individual ProductivityIndividual Productivity $93.7 million$93.7 million
• Workgroup ProductivityWorkgroup Productivity $193.8 million$193.8 million
• TotalTotal $327.1 million$327.1 million
Sexual Coercion
UnwantedUnwantedSexualSexualAttentionAttention
GenderGenderHarassmentHarassment
Examples
..made crude sexual remarks about you
..persistent requestsfor dinner, drinksdespite rejection
..subtly bribed youto engage in sexual behavior
3 Types of Victim Experiences
The Sexual ExperiencesQuestionnaire
Sexual Coercion
UnwantedUnwantedSexualSexualAttentionAttention
GenderGenderHarassmentHarassment
Incidence in 2 samplesof university women
15% to 47%15% to 47%
3 Types of Victim Experiences
from Fitzgerald, et al. (1988)
1% to 20%1% to 20%
1% to 5%1% to 5%
Studies of sexual harassment in my laboratories at ISU
The experimental social psychological The experimental social psychological approach: actual behavior is studied approach: actual behavior is studied
under controlled conditions.under controlled conditions.
SexualExploitation
Sexual Attraction/Miscommunication
OutgroupHostility
Three Types ofSexual Harassment
A Social Psychological Perspective
1
2
3
Some men may possess a proclivity for using social power to sexually exploit. Such proclivities are more likely to guide behaviors
when social norms allow or condon such behavior.
SEXUAL EXPLOITATIONSEXUAL EXPLOITATION
The Likelihood to Sexually Harass Scale - An Example Scenario
Imagine that you are the news director for a local television station. Due to some personnel changes you have to replace the anchor woman for the evening news. Your policy has always been to promote reporters from within your organization when an anchor woman vacancy occurs. There are several female reporters from which to choose. All are young, attractive, and apparently qualified for the job. One reporter, Loretta W., is someone whom you personally find very sexy. You initially hired her, giving her a first break in the TV news business. How likely are you to do the following things in this situation?
Pryor (1987)
The LSH Scale measures a man’swillingness to use social power to
sexually exploit women.
The LSH Scale measures a man’swillingness to use social power to
sexually exploit women.
SexuallyHarassingRole Model
ProfessionalRole Model
High LSHMen
Low LSHMen
© John B. Pryor, 1997
Design from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)Design from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)
Dependent Variable = Unsolicited Sexual Touching
0.36
0.55
0.89
0.22
0.000
0.250
0.500
0.750
1.000
Per
cent
Tou
chin
g
Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model
Role Model Conditions
Results from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)
Low LSH
High LSH
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
Sex
ual
ity
of
Ph
ysic
al C
on
tact
Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model
Role Model Conditions
Results from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)
Low LSH
High LSH
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
Sex
ual
ity
of
Ph
ysic
al C
on
tact
Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model
Role Model Conditions
Results from Pryor, LaVite, & Stoller (1993)
Low LSH
High LSH
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
Sex
ual
ity
of
Wo
rds
& A
ctio
ns
(Ap
art
fro
m t
ou
chin
g)
Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model
Role Model Conditions
Low LSH
High LSH
1.000
2.000
3.000
4.000
5.000
Sex
ual
ity
of
Wo
rds
& A
ctio
ns
(Ap
art
fro
m t
ou
chin
g)
Harassing Role Model Professional Role Model
Role Model Conditions
Low LSH
High LSH
Sexual Sexual TouchingTouching
Sexual Sexual Talk & Talk & Other Other NonverbalNonverbalBehaviorBehavior